Matt Garretson <mattg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
