Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
Bounce, or Redirect, is available in Evolution: Actions-Forward as - Redirect I'm not sure what you mean by Bounce for SPAM though. Can you explain what this feature does? a. On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 19:05 +0200, Job 317 wrote: KMail and other clients have that capability. On 21-May-2004 17:57:16 +0200, you wrote: Third, I would like a Bounce option for SPAM. Is this available? If not, will it be? You can't do that at the MUA level, only at the MTA
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
Ooooh, advanced email analyst... I want that job mommy. ;^) Lol, yea that sould like it would pay alot! On Fri, 21 May 2004, Job 317 wrote: If this is true then you have provided the single most helpful answer to my initial inquiry. I shall look more into how other email clients do this. Perhaps a more skilled e-mail analyst might be able to tell the difference between a truly bounced e-mail and an email bounced artificially from an e-mail client. I'm jumping in here at the end, skipped most the thread because this is a FAQ that's been beat to death before. But some common sense here dude. Don't you think if you could tell forged emails from the real ones spam like this wouldn't be a problem? Do you think every email sysadmin is a lazy bastard and justs leave the AllowForgedSpam toggle on? I suggest you take a moment and read up on what is know as an 'RFC' on the smtp protocol and email format. But the bottom line is the same, if you wanna bounce spam you're part of the problem, not the solution. If you really want it, you've got the source. Submit a patch. ___ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 16:52 +0200, Job 317 wrote: Hello group, Where can I find information about future releases and feature additions for Evolution? I think someone has already answered that, i'm not sure if its up to date right at this moment though. Specifically, I am interested in knowing when the next major release of Evolution is due. Again, I'm not sure if the web page is up to date. Right now, the next major release, 2.0, is targetted for mid-august (I think). We're literally working our arses sore to make this happen at the moment. Also, whether this version will support PGP Inline. If not, when. No it wont. We have some preliminary contributed patches, but they are not yet complete - the contributor is still interested in completing them though. So hopefully it will make the next release. Yes it has been a strategic decision not to support it, one of the justifications for this is that limitations in the specification's definition means that you are never actually guaranteed that the recipient can verify the sender; because of transport vagarities. Which is why we stick to pgp/mime, since it is the primary specified pgp standard _for email_, and it provides slightly better guarantees in this area. I guess you can argue either way but at the end of the day evolution just doesn't do it _yet_, and you'll just be wasting your breath, and not really helping us fix the other bugs we already have to fix. Third, I would like a Bounce option for SPAM. Is this available? If not, will it be? I think its been explained elsewhere, but bluntly, since spam messages generally (and almost always these days) forge all of their identifying sender information, spam bouncing is almost always completely worthless and merely adds to the network congestion that spam is blamed for in the first place. There are definitly no plans to ever support this feature in the core evolution application. I know the Evolution guys are busy but I really like the client and want it to do all things. Thanks mate. We're working hard to make sure the next release is really solid and polished. Unfortunately not everyone's requests will be fullfilled (we have been in feature freeze, essentially for months, although many new features have crept in despite this), but we're hoping to take 'the best of the rest', and build as high a quality, usable product as we can. For the devlopers this last release cycle has been a very long, very hard slog, so excuse the odd _expression_ of frustration - we just can't answer everyone's requests with 'sure bud, its in tomorrow'. We will probably be more relieved to get it out the door than users will be to get it on thier systems (averaged over all users vs all developers, i think our relief will outweigh everyone else's per person, a million to one at least :). Thanks for your interest, Michael Michael Zucchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ximian Evolution and Free Software Developer Novell, Inc. attachment: zed-48.small.jpg
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 14:56, Ron Johnson wrote: Regarding in-line PGP, the developers are tired of answering the same question that has been asked twice a week since forever. Although it does make you wonder what bizarre twist of temporary insanity goes on in Jeff's head that he actually writes responses to people who ask about inline PGP. Maybe he gets a kick out of it? I think we should rename this mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] [grin Have a nice weekend, Jeff :)] AfC Toronto -- Andrew Frederick Cowie Operational Dynamics Consulting Pty Ltd Australia +61 2 9977 6866 North America +1 646 472 5054 http://www.operationaldynamics.com/ ___ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 17:16, Ron Johnson wrote: [...] Or, better yet, put it in the mailing list signature. The MLM that PostgreSQL uses (or maybe it's just a bit of bash) allows them to put a rotating set of tips from the FAQ in the mailing list signature. Maybe Ximian could do the same. I think this would be great! Don't know if it would be difficult to set up/maintain but if it's possible I'd certainly vote for it! TIA Bram -- # Mertens Bram M8ram [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #349737 # # SuSE Linux 8.2 (i586) kernel 2.4.20-4GB i686 256MB RAM # # 6:28pm up 61 days 22:07, 7 users, load average: 0.18, 0.07, 0.01 # ___ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
[Evolution] Future of Evolution
Hello group, 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. Also, whether this version will support PGP Inline. If not, when. Third, I would like a Bounce option for SPAM. Is this available? If not, will it be? I know the Evolution guys are busy but I really like the client and want it to do all things. Thanks, JOB
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
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 Third, I would like a Bounce option for SPAM. Is this available? If not, will it be? Why would you want to bounce SPAM? Eric ___ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
KMail and other clients have that capability. On 21-May-2004 17:57:16 +0200, you wrote: Third, I would like a Bounce option for SPAM. Is this available? If not, will it be? You can't do that at the MUA level, only at the MTA
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
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. Any comment on the PGP-inline feature that I mentioned in my original post? Regards, JOB Eric ___ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
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
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
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
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
Again, I am unsure of your source of agitation. I am making comparrisons between e-mail clients and it is a useful feature that come clients have chosen to implement. I like Evolution a lot. Actually, it is my favorite client for Linux and my desire is to see it blow everyone else away with its features. I might even be persuaded to assist in the development of the requested features. I simply wasn't sure whether the features were currently being developed. This was the original nature of my post -- whether these features are being planned or not. Regards, JOB On 21-May-2004 19:31:08 +0200, you wrote: 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
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
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
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 19:44 +0200, Job 317 wrote: 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. Then again, you may find that having a policy of honesty in your (inter)actions makes your life much less complicated and far more pleasant. People may even end up respecting you. I suggest you give a life of forthrightness and honesty a serious try, rather than trying to get your software to lie for you! Meanwhile, I'm glad I never hired you as a contractor. Bounces should serve one purpose and one purpose only: To indicate that an address is invalid. Despite what Mark said, I believe they are still useful for that purpose. Eric ___ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 19:49 +0200, Job 317 wrote: Again, I am unsure of your source of agitation. I am making comparrisons between e-mail clients and it is a useful feature that come clients have chosen to implement. I like Evolution a lot. Actually, it is my favorite client for Linux and my desire is to see it blow everyone else away with its features. I might even be persuaded to assist in the development of the requested features. I simply wasn't sure whether the features were currently being developed. This was the original nature of my post -- whether these features are being planned or not. In 2004, the vast majority of bounce messages are *not* sent to the spammers who sent the message in the 1st place. Thus, you are making the situation *worse* by bouncing spam. Thus, the Evo developers think Bounce Mail is a mal-feature, and won't put it in. Regarding in-line PGP, the developers are tired of answering the same question that has been asked twice a week since forever. On 21-May-2004 19:31:08 +0200, you wrote: 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 -- Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
The Bounce function has may useful applications.
If, by bounce you mean redirect, then it's at
Actions - Forward as - Redirect
(and has been since 1.2 I think) and that is indeed useful. If you mean
bounce as in return to sender, then that's an MTA function, not an
MUA function, and is inapproriate in a professional piece of software
like evo - to say nothing of the deceitful uses which you mention.
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.
You seem to realise it's been requested, so you should also have
followed the discussion about why it is not going to be developed by the
Evo coders. It is up for a bounty I believe, and ISTR there have been a
few false starts, so Ximian have effectively said that they will include
it if someone else codes it - hence Jeff's comment about you coding it.
Pete
--
Pete Biggs :{)[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: 01865 275490 (Work)01865 275410 (Fax)[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
I repeat, you can't bounce a message at the MUA. It's like not answering a phone call after you've answered the phone. You maybe can return to sender, but it's not a bounce if it's been accepted by your MTA. If it's been accepted by your MTA, to the spammer, he's got what he wanted. However, it is a nice feature to make the spammer think that your e-mail address does not exist. If it's been accepted by your MTA, then no matter what you do with it, it's too late, the spammer has in his eyes won. On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 10:05, Job 317 wrote: KMail and other clients have that capability. On 21-May-2004 17:57:16 +0200, you wrote: Third, I would like a Bounce option for SPAM. Is this available? If not, will it be? You can't do that at the MUA level, only at the MTA ___ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 16:52 +0200, Job 317 wrote: Hello group, Where can I find information about future releases and feature additions for Evolution? http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution or some such. Specifically, I am interested in knowing when the next major release of Evolution is due. 2.0 is due out sometime in July I think. the above page has a roadmap. Jeff -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Novell, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.novell.com ___ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
Thank you. That's the first civil reply you've sent yet in this thread. JOB On 21-May-2004 21:04:18 +0200, you wrote: On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 16:52 +0200, Job 317 wrote: Hello group, Where can I find information about future releases and feature additions for Evolution? http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution or some such. Specifically, I am interested in knowing when the next major release of Evolution is due. 2.0 is due out sometime in July I think. the above page has a roadmap. Jeff -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Novell, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.novell.com
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
If this is true then you have provided the single most helpful answer to my initial inquiry. I shall look more into how other email clients do this. Perhaps a more skilled e-mail analyst might be able to tell the difference between a truly bounced e-mail and an email bounced artificially from an e-mail client. Thank you for an insightful answer. Regards, JOB On 21-May-2004 20:51:40 +0200, you wrote: I repeat, you can't bounce a message at the MUA. It's like not answering a phone call after you've answered the phone. You maybe can return to sender, but it's not a bounce if it's been accepted by your MTA. If it's been accepted by your MTA, to the spammer, he's got what he wanted. However, it is a nice feature to make the spammer think that your e-mail address does not exist. If it's been accepted by your MTA, then no matter what you do with it, it's too late, the spammer has in his eyes won. On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 10:05, Job 317 wrote: KMail and other clients have that capability. On 21-May-2004 17:57:16 +0200, you wrote: Third, I would like a Bounce option for SPAM. Is this available? If not, will it be? You can't do that at the MUA level, only at the MTA
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
My $.02 As part (lurker) on the qMail user list and a Mail admin in my own rite I would have to agree that in today's mail environment bounces are of little value and are more often a qualification for immediate drop. Too much spam.. As example... one of my home domains was online all of two days and it was being spammed various systems out their 'guessing' usernames in an attempt to find another entry for their list. I rsvped to one of them for the fun of it and within days that user id had made it onto dozens of other spam servers who were then sending spam to that user. Turned out it was not such a great idea in that I get more spam on that one user then I do on all my real accounts where the policy is drop it on the floor for all no 'white-list' mail sources. On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 14:05, Mark Gordon wrote: 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 ___ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution
Ooooh, advanced email analyst... I want that job mommy. ;^) --- J A Miller (Linuxdevr) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.chipnet.homelinux.com/ On Fri, 21 May 2004, Job 317 wrote: If this is true then you have provided the single most helpful answer to my initial inquiry. I shall look more into how other email clients do this. Perhaps a more skilled e-mail analyst might be able to tell the difference between a truly bounced e-mail and an email bounced artificially from an e-mail client. Thank you for an insightful answer. Regards, JOB [snip embedded replies] ___ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
