[Top] [All Lists]

Re: per user post-data rejects, Processing after the end of DATA

2010-08-12 18:29:57

No, that's not even close to the typical use-case. The typical use-case is much
simpler: Per-user Sieves or similar user-specified filters that support
reject/ereject or its equivalent.

Oh, OK.

One of the typical ways this plays out is the system spam filter, for whatever
reason, misses some spam. (Hardly an uncommon occurance.) One user then takes
it upon themselves to add a rule to reject the spam they received. But other
users don't do this.

So if they've decided it's spam, what's the problem with throwing it away?

or if they're reasonably confident in their filters, just not deliver it to the second recipient.

Whould would mean, in some cases, ignoring specific whiteisting directives that
you're contracurally obliged to support. THat's a good way to get yourself
sued. (I Happen to know this last has been a real, not theoretical, issue.)

I think you have my example backwards. The second recipient is the one whose filter decided he didn't want the mail. You deliver the mail to the person who said he wanted it.

I don't deny that there are some scenarios where per recipient rejections could be useful. But I'm still having trouble coming up with scenarios where after looking at the body of the message, it's significantly wrong just to drop it for the receipients who don't want it. How realistic is it to have a per-user content based rejection that's based on something other than concluding that a message is spam?

John Levine, johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>