[feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft

[Damon Sauer]

The root problem really is the original process.
The user opens their mailbox, puts a check mark in every email they
see as spam and ALSO every email they just don't want to read or
ignore. Then they hit the spam button. It is much easier than a two
step process: Mark spam then mark just delete, then read mail. Because
the ISP's have made it easy to get rid of the "stuff" in your box with
one button, the spam button now becomes dual purpose. It concerns me
that this same process is used to determine the reputation of the
sender. Now as the sender, we have to try and separate those that
really thought it was spam and those that were just cleaning up their
mailbox.

With the ARF, I was hoping that, if we can't change the root issue,
maybe we can at least provide a space, whether it is used or not, for
some ISP to provide further information to the sender from the
receiver OR further insight as to our current status with ISP. I get a
report card from AOL, why can't this same information be incorporated
into the ARF so that other ISP's can provide similar information if
they so chose?

Just trying to share my thoughts and views, not throw monkey wrenches.
I am ok with it as is, better than nothing.

Regards,
Damon

On 25 May 2007 05:39:44 -0000, John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
> >Another point is how far will this go. Are we just keeping this as a way
> >for receivers to provide feedback to people up the sending food chain,
> >or is this becoming a more general mechanism for people to exchange
> >opinions about emails. I lean towards #1 since it is a more narrow goal
> >rather than #2.
>
> I hope we agree it's #1, it's a way for a recipient (or more likely
> recipient's agent) up the food chain, not for content opinion
> negotiation.  It occurred to me early on that if a message were
> certified by something like VBR and the recipient hit the spam button,
> you'd want to send the exact same abuse report to the sender and to
> the certifier.
>
> Re the questions, it looks like your proposed answers are all the same
> as mine.  Unless I hear some disagreement, I'm inclined to consider
> them all resolved and update the draft accordingly.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> abuse-feedback-report mailing list
> abuse-feedback-report at mipassoc.org
> http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report
>