Subject: Why bounce/reject is necessary

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:11:46 -0800 (PST)

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.
(2) Rejecting a mailing list which won't unsubscribe you.

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.

So I think bounce/reject is critical functionality in Sieve and is
important independent of reply.

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.

		- Chris

P.S. I think it's pointless to argue at what point Sieve is executed.  As
long as we know what objects it operates on, its function is well defined.

---

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:59:12 -0500 (EST)

> when MUAs can automatically associate DSNs and MDNs with the messages that

Ok, the draft says DSN syntax.  I'll try to release another draft in the
next day or two, mostly so that the expiration date is correct.

Should it say SHOULD or MUST?

-- 
                                           Tim Showalter [email-masked]

---

From: Tomas Fasth <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:06:11 +0100

> to use that rather than the reply-to/from header:

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.

> do, as it would go to the author of the message rather than the mailing

I agree.

> important independent of reply.

I think not. It should at least not be mandatory.

> when MUAs can automatically associate DSNs and MDNs with the messages that

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 <[email-masked]>
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)

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:07:17 -0800 (PST)

> What I don't understand is why this would be solved within the domain of

Suppose I'm a sales representative and some of my customers are reassigned
to a new sales representative, but my old address remains the same for
other correspondence.

Any action which might be conditional on the from/sender is fair game for
Sieve.

		- Chris