I get enough spurious bounce messages to have formed a strong opinion that bounce messages are a major contribution to needless mailbox clutter and a disservice to users in 99% of instances. It once was true that bounce messages invariably came from machines to which I had actually sent messages and were a result of my having fatfingered an address. Today, the overwhelming majority of bounce messages I receive are in response to spoofed email. Welcome to 2004. In this day and age, bounce messages are immoral.
-Mark Gordon On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 19:44 +0200, Job 317 wrote: > I don't understand your anger. I am a client and user of Evolution. I > believe Novell traditionally does not treat their customers in this > manner. > > The "Bounce" function has may useful applications. I believe in my > original post I admitted the exact point you made in that most spammers > either don't look whether e-mail bounces, but likely forge the sending > address anyway. I simply indicated that it could be useful there. > > Also, if a user wants plausible deniability in not being notified of an > unpleasant event (say, dinner on Friday with an undesireable > acquaintance), a bounce of their original would make it appear that > either you no longer hold that e-mail address or that, at a minimum, the > server was down preventing delivery. > > Also, think of past employers attempting to get you to come back for a > contract that you don't want to deal with. > > Many usefull applications of this feature. > > Also, why would you ask whether I have developed the PGP-inline feature > for Evolution -- a feature that I know has been requested over and over > again for better overall integration with other PGP-enabled e-mail > services (e.g. Outlook). This question was simply an inquisition, not an > accusation. > > It was just a question for the developers. No need to get hot. > > Regards, > > JOB > > On 21-May-2004 19:21:48 +0200, you 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 > > > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
