Re: sieve draft

["Jack De Winter" <jack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:32 PM 11/2/96 +0100, Tomas Fasth wrote:
>Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
>> It's certainly possible to handle it that way.  However, note that there
>> are nonzero costs associated with accepting delivery.  If the typical
>> message to my hypothetical support service contains a many-megabyte
>> coredump (and I have direct experience with users who mail such things
>> to support addresses), I'd much rather refuse delivery altogether than
>> have to consume the bandwidth to accept the message and then discard it.
>
>I can see your point.
>
>But in order to avoid consuming bandwidth you need to apply the
>filtering rules as part of SMTP negotiation. The information
>available at that point will limit your filtering rules to operate
>on the addresses of the originator and the recipients as negotiated
>by MAIL and RCPT, and possibly some peer information.

well, if I remember one of the discussion at the conference in
Memphis right, the problem occured if mail was send to A and B,
where A and B had different sets of filtering rules.  you would
have to accept both of them, and then apply another filtering
after the message duplication had occured.

regards,
Jack
-------------------------------------------------
Jack De Winter - Wildbear Consulting, Inc.
(519) 884-4498		http://www.wildbear.on.ca/jacks/