At 12:24 PM 3/10/2005 -0500, Bruce Lilly wrote:
On Wed March 9 2005 18:27, David MacQuigg wrote:
> I was trying to move the discussion away from "what is spam" ( Irrelevant
> question, in my opinion ) back to what to do with "Spam Bounces", assuming
> the subjective judgement has already been made by the user.
If a user has already seen the message, there is no "bounce" (a bounce
would be a transport-related notification). A user *might* elect to
compose an entirely new message (e.g. to an abuse contact), but that
situation (new messages) is already covered in the architecture draft.
I think it is not a good idea to have users compose any message in response
to a spam. Much better if they can just hit a "Reject as Spam" button, and
know that the "Spam Bounce" will be handled promptly and correctly. Do we
agree that Spam Bounces should not go to the Return-Path? Do we agree that
reputable forwarders should want to receive these bounces?
-- Dave
************************************************************* *
* David MacQuigg, PhD * email: dmq'at'gci-net.com * *
* IC Design Engineer * phone: USA 520-721-4583 * * *
* Analog Design Methodologies * * *
* * 9320 East Mikelyn Lane * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C. * Tucson, Arizona 85710 *
************************************************************* *