Subject: [Asrg] FWD: 2b. Filtering Standards - Standard filtering header

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:18:49 -0500

This is forwarded from the filtering subgroup mailing list.

Yakov

------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jesse Dougherty
Subject: Uses of incoming data ...
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:49:34 +0000

IMHO, There are really two questions to answer when trying to define
headers added to messages to indicate the results of filtering:
1) what information is useful and to whom?
2) what format is useful and how will it be consumed?

My quick thoughts on #1 ...

The incoming email filtered at a gateway/proxy (SMTP or POP time).  The
message is then available  to a client or workgroup server, where a
message disposition decision is made.

Please Note: The information required by an administrator of a workgroup
server may be different than those of the recipient (as the admin of the
server may have to enforce some local policies regarding content,
privacy, etc).  Definitions of spam aren't consistent (initiate 1 year
email list argument here!).

Different applications implement:
1) unwanted email (ex: bayes systems trained by
individuals/groups)
2) UCBE or some combination thereof (ex: heuristic systems
trained on honeypots)
3) Email Hygiene  (same as #2 but cleaned of porn, scams, and
other nasties)

(Please extend the above if you have more insight).

Questions:
Should we consider a more granular / extensible header spec?

-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"I want to know G-d's thoughts... the rest are details" (Albert Einstein)
-------

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg