Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft)

[Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:
> 
> I believe the model that other IETF groups are aiming for is more like
> 
>         [Sender MUA] -> [Submission Agent] ->
>             [chain of zero or more Transport Agents] ->
>                 [Delivery Agent] -> [Recipient MUA]
> 
> There is active work on separating message relay (as happens in the chain
> of transport agents) from message submission.
> 
> However, I think both the Submission and Delivery agents are legitimately
> considered part of the transport system.

Thanks Bart for the clarification. I can accept that model. It seem to
me that [Delivery Agent] is more or less equal to a [Message Store], if
one equals [Recipient MUA] with an IMAP client.

> My desire would be that filtering could be inserted at almost any stage.
> If the result of the filter is that the message is going to be rejected
> or rerouted, then better to catch it as early as possible before the bits
> have crossed the wires.
> 
> However, it is true that the farther you get from the recipient MUA, the
> less likely the user is to get control over the disposition of messages.

Is it reasonable to believe that this could be done in a robust and safe
way? I fear such a dream can easily turn into a nightmare if not
carefully
analysed before implemented.

> } On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Tomas Fasth wrote:
> }
> } Rationale: I don't understand the difference between MTA and MUA filtering.

Just for the record: I (Tomas Fasth) did not made the qouted statement
above or any of the consecutive qouted statements. I think it was Tim
that made those statements.

-- 
Hälsningar/Regards

Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258
TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden