mailing list archives

meli community discussions

⚠️ if something does not work as intended when interracting with the mailing lists,
reach out Github mirror Gitea repo @epilys:matrix.org

E-mail headers
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:34:42 -0000
Message-ID: 1247001507.8602.109.camel@legolas.orthanc.ca permalink / raw / eml / mbox
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. 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.)

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).

I will summarize the responses to the imap-ext list in a couple of weeks
(or sooner if the response rate dictates.)

--lyndon
Reply
E-mail headers
From: lyndon@orthanc.ca
To: imap-protocol@localhost
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:34:42 -0000
Message-ID: alpine.BSF.2.00.0908242105240.18476@legolas.yyc.orthanc.ca permalink / raw / eml / mbox
I realize this is a bit later than promised, but I was holding out hope 
for (more) responses.

The results were underwhelming. Two unofficial reports of client 
behaviour, and a note from Mark describing how their server products look 
at spam-related keywords.

Apparently SPAM isn't an issue after all.

I'll let Mark elaborate about his stuff if he thinks it's relevant. The 
rest of the info was anecdotal and shouldn't go into the record.

--lyndon
Reply