Terry Fielder wrote:
If the source or contributing factor of your depression (SPAM) is your
pre-existing condition of erectile dysfunction (Forwarding)...
Broken analogy. Forwarding is a need and a desire. Erectile
disfunction is not.
then your medecine (SPF) is treating the symptom of depression (SPAM)
without addressing at least one of the underlying causes of the
disease (Forwarding).
Forwarding is neither a disease nor its cause. Blocking forwarding is a
broken attempt to solve a problem.
The ability to forward with/without re-addressing to me is
re-injection. That is where our opinions differ.
And to most, re-injection requires the "forwarder" to take
responsibility.
And to you I suspect forwarding is not re-injection.
But when MTA X gives the message to the target X intended Y, when Y
passes msg onto Z it really should be Y (not X) that is responsible
for the message getting to Z. Hence to me why it is re-injection
whether or not there is re-addressing.
Y is not the intended target. The end-consumer of the information is
the intended target. Y is just an address that is known to move the
mail to *or* *closer* *to* the intended target. When I say "send mail
to me to x(_at_)foo(_dot_)com" I am not saying that when mail reaches x(_at_)foo(_dot_)com it
reaches me. I am saying that mail sent to x(_at_)foo(_dot_)com will ultimately
reach me via a path that is none of your business. And as long as I
*as* *a* *user* have control over what happens to mail sent to
x(_at_)foo(_dot_)com, then that's all you or anyone have a right to know.