Re: Summary of Issues Raised to date

David Harris wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2004 at 18:17, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> 
...
>>A side point this leads into is a more general question of MTA/MUA 
>>interaction. Some people would really like to have an ability to have a
>>"this is spam" button in the MUA which will feed back to the MTA. Or the
>>MTA letting the MUA know that some of the previous messages delivered
>>should be considered spam.
> 
> 
> I think this is probably outside the ambit of this group, isn't it? I mean, 
> it's an idea that may be worth pursuing, but wouldn't it be better to stick 
> to the aims in hand? Alternatively, since plenty of people may want to 
> discuss this type of thing (myself included), perhaps we could decide on 
> the basics first then enlarge the discussion to include topics like this 
> after that's done?
> 
>

As per my message regarding the scope of IRTF work, the research topics 
are actually very appropriate. The key question is whether a larger, 
more general MTA/MUA protocol will encompass the filtering header. If 
not, then we should probably concentrate on the filtering header first.

Thoughts?

Yakov