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

NED+mta-filters@mauve.mrochek.com Wed, 18 January 2017 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <NED+mta-filters@mauve.mrochek.com>
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 453781293DC for <sieve@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:32:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 FvJzdxd0nrLL for <sieve@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [68.183.62.69]) (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 3A4AE129442 for <sieve@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q9SPQ81RKW000HTP@mauve.mrochek.com> for sieve@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:27:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q9Q42VM1B400004H@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for sieve@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:27:05 -0800 (PST)
From: NED+mta-filters@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01Q9SPQ6F0W000004H@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:24:12 -0800 (PST)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:21:21 +1100" <1484698881.2689745.851047760.743150E6@webmail.messagingengine.com>
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>
To: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sieve/xUZ0ZxSXBrgcimrgMiNOwl6M9gs>
Cc: sieve@ietf.org, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
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 00:32:12 -0000

> > And such messages can and often do contain part or all of the original
> > message, creating exactly the issue I've been talking about.

> So we're back to this then.

This has been the issue from the start.

> Do you also object to websites saying "404 not found"
> while still logging the fact that you tried to look at a resource?

Nope. But the situations are not remotely comparable. No users involved, just
for starters.

> 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.

				Ned