oh, and just because "kmail has it" doesn't make it a good idea. in fact, it is probably a good reason NOT to have it (I think a lot of the kmail features are crack).
Jeff On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 13:28 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 19:08 +0200, Job 317 wrote: > > On 21-May-2004 17:57:20 +0200, you wrote: > > > On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 16:52, Job 317 wrote: > > > > Where can I find information about future releases and feature > > additions > > > > for Evolution? > > > > > > > > Specifically, I am interested in knowing when the next major release > > of > > > > Evolution is due. > > > > > > 2.0: Q3 > > > > Great. > > > > > > > > > Third, I would like a Bounce option for SPAM. Is this available? If > > not, > > > > will it be? > > > > > > Why would you want to bounce SPAM? > > > > Admitedly, a lot of SPAMers these days don't care whether the target is > > active or not and don't check. They will likely spoof the source address > > anyway. However, it is a nice feature to make the spammer think that > > your e-mail address does not exist. Also, other mail clients (e.g. > > KMail) do currently support this feature. > > this is a totally wasteful feature to have. it does nothing but kill > more bandwidth and create even more amounts of spam. What if the > original spammer spoofs someone's email address and you hit bounce? > well, now *that* user gets hit with extra spam... creating a world of > even more pain and suffering. Besides, do you *really* think they pay > attention to what addresses bounce? hell no, it's not economical to do > so. > > it's better to just leave the spam be and get on with your life. don't > contribute to the problem. > > > > > Any comment on the PGP-inline feature that I mentioned in my original > > post? > > have you coded it yet? > > Jeff > -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Novell, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.novell.com _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
