Re: [Evolution] Future of Evolution

[Ron Johnson <ron l johnson cox net>]

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.
> > fejj ximian com  - www.novell.com
-- 
Ron Johnson <ron l johnson cox net>