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

[Tim Showalter <tjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Tomas Fasth wrote:

> > 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.

Procmail has done a fairly decent job and presents roughly the same dangers,
and I think it has even more potential to shoot users in the feet.  But I
haven't used it, and haven't even looked at the documentation much...

> > } 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.

I made this statement.

I think bounce (or reject) has utility, although I'd like to hear more
concrete examples.  Bart Schaefer's examples seem valid enough, but I'm
wavering a bit.  I'm inclined to make it optional.

-- 
                                           Tim Showalter tjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx