waiting on message notifications

Jason Woofenden <[email protected]> Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:12:50 -0500
Newsgroups gmane.mail.im2000
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Howdy all,

I've been thinking about what personal benefit I would get (as an email user)
from IM2000. And how I would want my MUA to behave.

I would want my MUA to wait a certain amount of time (maybe 2 or 6 hours)
before acknowledging (to the sending message store) notifications from servers
it does not recognize. After this time period it would check the notifications
against a blacklist (at which point I think they would probably be on the
blacklist.)

The waiting notification would be available to me if I wanted to sift through
them (e.g. if I was expecting an email from someone new.)


BTW, I am aware that much of this technique could be implemented with SMTP/POP,
but not as cheaply, (it would require much more bandwidth, and hosting for your
inbox) and not as quickly (bandwidth). In some cases there would be enough
difference that one would be usable and the other wouldn't.


I think this technique would work well for just a few people, and it would also
be great if everybody used it. If lots of people did this, they would choose
different wait times. This way when a spammer sends out a deluge of
notifications (I imagine a server could send out at least millions of these per
minute) the people who chose short (or no) delay times will flag it and nobody
after that will download it.


I would like my MUA to have a command to report the current message as spam to
the same black list that it uses to check notifications.

I'm not sure how the black list should work.

Here's a half baked idea: Perhaps it would be separate from IM2000 altogether,
or perhaps some IM2000 inbox hosting companies would create a black list based
on the filters of it's customers (with their permission of course.) If this is
a good idea, perhaps there should be a distinction in the IM2000 protocol
between telling your notification agent to ignore messages, and telling it to
ignore it because it's spam.


OK, those are my thoughts. I welcome further ideas in this line of thought, an
any reasons why you think these ideas might not work well.


Best regards,

      - Jason