MBOX-Line: From lyndon at orthanc.ca  Tue Jul 21 14:49:11 2009
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:42 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Re: A survey of Spam-related keyword usage by IMAP
	clients.
In-Reply-To: <01NB1I98RDS4001ML6@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <1247001507.8602.109.camel@legolas.orthanc.ca>
	<01NB1I98RDS4001ML6@mauve.mrochek.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0907211541390.25656@legolas.orthanc.ca>

The response to the keyword survey has been ... underwhelming. Surely 
there is more than one client represented on the mailing lists?!?

Once again, the information we're looking for is described below. Please 
forward this to every client writer you know and ask them to respond. 
We're never going to solve this problem if these people don't start 
participating.

Please send responses directly to me.

>> It's time to get a current view of how IMAP clients are using keywords
>> to manage spam. If you are a client author I would appreciate it if you
>> could take a moment to send me a note describing which keywords your
>> client uses for spam-related processing, and what each of the keywords
>> signifies.

> I'd also really like to know if the client has "this is spam" or "this 
> is not spam" buttons in the UI, and if it does how those buttons 
> interact with the use of keywords.

> I ask this because users of any client that has such buttons are clearly 
> going to use those buttons preferentially over any other labelling 
> mechanism. And if a significant number of clients have such buttons that 
> do a particular thing - regardless of what that thing is - that's pretty 
> much going to be determinative in finding the most easily deployed 
> approach.

>> If your client does not use keywords for this purpose, that's
>> valuable information, too, as is a breakdown of functionality by
>> software version number if there are significant differences. (If you
>> use non-keyword facilities to manage spam feel free to include a short
>> description of your methods if you think the info might be relevant.)
>
> Yes please. I'm especially interested in how many clients do this by 
> resending the message to a special address.
>
>> I'm primarily interested in getting authoritative data from the client
>> authors, but others should feel free to chime in with deployment-based
>> experience of related keyword usage, but please indicate the source of
>> your comments (e.g. deployment experience, source code examination).

