Aaron Stone wrote:
Ok, so what would the policy of the sorting interface be?
The "spam script" could be something different from the general
sort-my-mailinglists-etc script, and be partly hardcoded with spam in mind.
Any script with "spam" and "reject" within 50 characters of one another could
be considered invalid.
Any user found to be unaware of good spam management policies could be
prevented from uploading Sieve scripts and thus forced to use the default.
Aaron
*SNIP*
This might not be possible, but a pie-in-the-sky goal....
- Regardless of the location, 'quality', point-of-introduction/action of
the inline, batched, <whatever> spam filtering (be it seive or something
else)....
- It would seem to me to be desirable that the "system" be aware that
the source of the 'attempted bounce' is a spam-detection process, hence
by (developer's recommended, hence default) policy, is *not permitted*
to send a 'bounce' (as these are too often from forged addresses, result
in 'bunce wars', ricochet to other servers, etc.)
IOW - perhaps 'bounces' can only be permitted to originate *within* the
SMTPD, *before* spam detection occurs.
Come to think of it.... if one does a 'reject' on invalid users, would
that leave a 'mailbox full' the only commonly valid reason to do a 'bounce'?
We could drop *seriously* malformed messages on the floor... handling
the merely stupidly malformed OE ones is a road well-traveled already..
(You see why I want to control the SMTPD as well as the rest of the animal)
Bill Hacker
And - BTW, SMTPD's can be had that are quite small...
