Chris Newman wrote:
The crucial difference between bounce/reject and reply is that the
envelope sender is used. There are two cases where it is very important
to use that rather than the reply-to/from header:
(1) Change of address.
Hmm. This is certainly a service we have wanted in MTAs for a long time.
What I don't understand is why this would be solved within the domain of
message filtering?
In a sense the mail account might not exist anymore, therefore the need
to notify about an address change in the first place. It might not be
appropriate to apply a filter at all, because the maildrop have ceased
to exist.
Therefore I do not consider the need to notify a change of address as a
valid argument for making reject mandatory.
(2) Rejecting a mailing list which won't unsubscribe you.
Great. Just because most MUAs don't give the user a choice of sending
replies to the MAIL FROM address, you now mandate an automatic junk
duplicator. I am maintaining my position that automation of junk mail
rejection (== traffic duplicator) is not a good solution to that kind
of a problem. Discard isn't either, but not as bad.
In either of these cases a "reply" function is actually the wrong thing to
do, as it would go to the author of the message rather than the mailing
list owner.
I agree.
So I think bounce/reject is critical functionality in Sieve and is
important independent of reply.
I think not. It should at least not be mandatory.
I also think it should use DSN syntax. I'm looking forward to the day
when MUAs can automatically associate DSNs and MDNs with the messages that
generated them.
I can agree with that. Thinking about it, MDNs have properties that are
better suited to be integrated in the MUA overall funtionality, not in a
filtering language.
--
Hälsningar/Regards
Tomas Fasth <tomas(_dot_)fasth(_at_)twinspot(_dot_)net>
Tel: +46-13-218-181 Cel: +46-708-870-957 Fax: +46-708-870-258
EuroNetics Operation, Mjärdevi Science Park, 58330 Linköping, Sweden
(TwinSpot Network is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation)