Re: [sieve] On "reject" and :fcc Wed, 18 January 2017 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 453781293DC for <>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:32:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.101
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FvJzdxd0nrLL for <>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A4AE129442 for <>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> for; 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 by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> (original mail from for; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:24:12 -0800 (PST)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:21:21 +1100" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Bron Gondwana <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Ned Freed <>
Subject: Re: [sieve] On "reject" and :fcc
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIEVE Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.