John Hogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
> >I've never seen anyone else ask for this type of control, and have a
> >difficult time imagining why it would be necessary (or even desirable).
> >Probably no one else has written such a patch or add-on; you'd need to do
> >it yourself. Note that this would then require parsing the original
> >message headers -- a job tricky to do without introducing bugs.
>
> ick
Yes, ick indeed.
> >Why do you want to control this?
>
> we get quite a number of them daily (sometimes 300-400/day) - some
> customers' sites have email addresses on web pages, robots harvest them
> (you know the ending)
Yes. I see 100-300 double-bounces a day myself. I glance at them to see if I
can help someone (obvious typo, etc) but most are double-bounces of spam to
bad addresses, and get deleted with <1s of effort on my part.
> i'd like to at least get rid of the Content-Type, Content-Transfer,
> X-MSMail-Priority, etc... just keep the basics in case i need to flog someone
I personally don't see how this would help anything. As Russell Nelson has
aid a couple of times in the last 24 hours, "What problem are you trying to
solve?" Bounces go to the envelope sender; returning the complete headers of
their message to them can help them if they need to re-send it. Returning
incomplete headers looks like a lot of work with little payoff in the end.
Double-bounces are a fact of life to a mail admin.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
