Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:56:16 -0600
From: Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
The only point I feel strongly about is this:
2. Why? Maybe I want to make a folder of messages that I have
rejected, or redirect them to a processor that updates my "bad
people to filter against" list. What's the problem with rejecting
and doing one of these other things?
I do not want the spec to require that users be granted the ability
to make a mail server lie.
But *if* reject sends an MDN (with the MDN-sent-automatically and
automatic-action modes), as I believe it should, and the MDN for
reject is "deleted", which is defined as:
"deleted" The message has been deleted. The recipient may or
may not have seen the message. The
recipient might "undelete" the message at
a later time and read the message.
then I don't see this as a lie. You are informing the sender that his
message has been automatically deleted from the users normal mail
reading facilities and may not be seen by anyone. That's all true.
If there is consensus for the other stuff and you need some text, I
might be able to contribute.
Ok, right, that would change things substantially. In fact, a lot of
the action interaction garbage goes away, because who cares what you do
with it?
Actually, given this, could we make reject required? That's a good
thing, too.
Contributions are welcome.
--
Tim Showalter <tjs+(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu>