From: Joseph Brennan (no email)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2008 - 09:00:59 EDT
Matt Garretson <> wrote:
> Along similar lines, any well-written Procmail recipe which redirects
> mail typically checks for, or adds, an "X-Loop" header before
> forwarding anything.
Yes, it's an old solution.
The crucial difference is that if one writes a bad procmail recipe,
the message loops round and round until one of the MTAs considers
the hop count exceeded and bounces it to sender, but if one writes
a bad sieve rule, the message _is silently lost_. That's a much
harsher penalty.
And we stand a chance of here of doing _better_ than procmail. If
we insert a header roughly like 'X-Sieve-Seen: user hostname' when
we forward, we can look for it in incoming messages and say we
won't forward again. So the penalty for writing a bad sieve forward
rule would be that it doesn't forward. That's better than bounce
to sender, and way better than losing the message.
> If the "editheader" Sieve extension gets implemented, then a well-
> written sieve script should be able to do the same type of thing.
> To me this seems a bit more sane than expecting lmtp or sieve to
> accomplish it automatically.
I've been called crazy before!
Joseph Brennan
Lead Email Systems Engineer
Columbia University Information Technology
---- Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/ Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/twiki List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
|
|
|