Re: [sieve] On "reject" and :fcc

Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Wed, 18 January 2017 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Original-To: sieve@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sieve@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6371A12948A for <sieve@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:07:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6tvKxgkBFNAa for <sieve@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:07:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (SMTP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.157.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D58181294AB for <sieve@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:07:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.31.24.61] (VPN-172-31-24-61.VPN.CMU.LOCAL [172.31.24.61]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v0IC7c5A063552 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <sieve@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:07:39 -0500
To: sieve@ietf.org
References: <1484691459.1802986.850940944.17135021@webmail.messagingengine.com> <01Q9SN4A5CB400004H@mauve.mrochek.com> <1484695748.520887.851011408.2EB11064@webmail.messagingengine.com> <01Q9SP1R5AP200004H@mauve.mrochek.com> <1484698881.2689745.851047760.743150E6@webmail.messagingengine.com> <01Q9SPQ6F0W000004H@mauve.mrochek.com> <012499BC3A68B6D107DF9613@tyrion.rrz.uni-koeln.de>
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Message-ID: <a7bd7023-3b0f-e987-1d7a-bb03a83c8665@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:07:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <012499BC3A68B6D107DF9613@tyrion.rrz.uni-koeln.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 6.3.0.2556906, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2017.1.18.115716
X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 10% ( TO_IN_SUBJECT 0.5, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1200_1299 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, FROM_EDU_TLD 0, IN_REP_TO 0, LEGITIMATE_SIGNS 0, MSG_THREAD 0, NO_URI_HTTPS 0, REFERENCES 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MOZILLA_USER_AGENT 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1 0, __REFERENCES 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_IN_SUBJECT2 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __USER_AGENT 0)
X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 10%
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 128.2.157.38
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sieve/EQT5gnchTAg5jg0aJSzBvgsPJFo>
Subject: Re: [sieve] On "reject" and :fcc
X-BeenThere: sieve@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIEVE Working Group <sieve.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sieve>, <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sieve/>
List-Post: <mailto:sieve@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve>, <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:07:42 -0000

As it turns out, the point with soon be moot w.r.t. Cyrus.  I realized 
last night that I never implemented ereject, and when I do, Cyrus will 
reject at the LMTP level and therefore no DSN or MDN.


On 01/18/2017 04:06 AM, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
>
> --On 17. Januar 2017 um 16:24:12 -0800 
> NED+mta-filters@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
>
>>> Sometimes you want to keep the junk that was sent to you while 
>>> saying to
>>> the sender that nobody got that message.  Making that hard within the
>>> standard will just cause people to work around it by doing things like
>>> capturing all mail that hits the MXes before sieve processes it.  Not
>>> providing a facility because it can be used to lie doesn't change that.
>>
>> As I said before, if you really think it's perfectly OK to provide a
>> mechanism to your users that allows them to instruct the system to 
>> lie in
>> an offical system message about them not having gotten the content of a
>> mail message, then we have nothing further to talk about.
>
> For the record, I agree with Bron on this. It's up to the users if 
> they want to lie.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University