[Top] [All Lists]

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

1997-11-04 16:38:43
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
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.


Tomas Fasth <tomas(_dot_)fasth(_at_)twinspot(_dot_)net>
tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258
TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden