Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

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.
fejj ximian com  - www.novell.com