Re: [Extra] Sieve REJECT and :fcc [was Re: Meeting minutes and notes from today]

[Arnt Gulbrandsen <[e-mail]>]

Stan Kalisch writes:
> Perhaps, but, after all, reject already provides that facility. 
>  But that's not the central point of my argument in favor of 
> allowing reject to invoke :fcc.
>
> Some users have arguably (at least, certainly morally) 
> legitimate reasons to lie about the delivery of mail.

You can also argue that software has a duty to serve its user.

If the user wants to send mail claiming that 2+2=7 on Tuesdays, that the 
check is in the mail, or that he/she hadn't received that other mail, 
that's the user's business. The software's duty is to serve its master.

(But as I said in another message, sieve may serve two masters, and even if 
the software will loyally lie in the name of one master, that doesn't mean 
one of the masters should be able to force the software to lie in the name 
of the other.)

Arnt