[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IMAP extensions needed for SPAM/HAM and WHITE/BLACK listing


Ned Freed wrote:


I have no desire to argue against my own proposal! sorry if I
misunderstood the tenor of some comments to this suggestion.



The original posting asked about two things



1) spam/ham



2) white/black



so far, people seem to be focussing on 1). I acknowledge problems with
1), I appreciate that people are trying to address 1) as a possibility.



I asked about 2). I asked you if, ignoring 1), it was possible or
plausible to send white/black information about sender, if 1) was hard
or intractable.
Of course it's possible, but this has no business being in IMAP. IMAP is a message access protocol, not an address handling protocol. It is also already 
quite complex, and extending its function to include what amountss to a
specialized address book capability is a really bad idea IMO.
In fact a pretty good case can be made that it's inappropriate to use IMAP for spam/ham classification, but at the spam/ham classification is 
intrinsicly tied to messages in the store. The same cannot be said for
address white and blacklisting.


+1


Does that make more sense? I do realize white/black listing is a
different PROBLEM to spam/ham marking, but neither of them currently
have support directly in imap, and I imagine both of them would use
IMAP extensions to pass information client-server.
The place where I'd like to see white and black listing done is in CARDDAV, not 
IMAP.


Or LDAP :-).
There is also a Sieve extension for making use of whitelists/blacklists during mail delivery. See draft-melnikov-sieve-external-lists-02.txt. 
It can work with CARDDAV, LDAP and other things.