Jo Rhett <jrhett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I would ask that you spend some time determining how the > program could determine it is a bad rule, and provide a patch to fix this > behavior. (in short -- it's harder than you think) A mail delivery system that loses mail is buggy. I don't need to look at the code to know that. You can tell me no one has time to fix it, and in an open source project I can respect that. But it is a bug. > > or back to sender (grounds: not deliverable as configured). > > Only if you want to become a source for backscatter. Losing mail is much worse than backscatter. With bounces limited to people who get a forward loop going, bounces are not a big issue. Gary Mills <mills@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Of course, > it's impossible to distinguish between a forwarding loop and a real > duplicate unless another `Received' header is added to the message > header. Hm. What if duplicate suppression is turned off? Infinite loop? Hop count is the classic MTA method of detection, but here the very first time around the loop will hit dup suppression. This calls for something else that lets the system know the message already passed through a local sieve script. Joseph Brennan 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
