Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution

[Mark Gordon <mtgordon ximian com>]

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.
> > fejj ximian com  - www.novell.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part