On Sat 02 Mar 2013 at 09:20:14 -0800, David Guntner wrote: > Brian grabbed a keyboard and wrote: > > > > "Be strict in what you send and generous in what you receive" is still a > > good maxim to follow. > > I agree. And when I'm setting up a mail *server* (which typically > services the needs of multiple users, even if I'm most likely going to > be the only one using it), I follow that to a reasonable degree (I do > set up some fairly conservative DNSBL lookups for the worst spam > offending sources). But when I (or any other person, for that matter) > am setting up my personal mail handling, I'm free to be as strict on > what I receive as I care to. > > And face it, the scenario you describe above is not one I (or a number > of other people) are likely to run into all that often. Possible, sure. > Probable, not as much.
Email deletion is final and irrecoverable. I am not prepared to delete mail based on an optional email header. You are. That's all there is to it. :) [Snip] > As with anything, use the mail processing rules which work for you. I'm > clearly not the only person in the world who *really* doesn't like > getting duplicate copies of mailing list replies, or I wouldn't have > posted that (I only did so because someone was complaining about exactly > that problem). And I, for one, am not going to give up the convenience > of the above rule on the off chance that a 1-in-1000 scenario such as > the one you describe might happen. :-) That's fine. It's your mail. > One thing that always amuses me about these types of discussions: Every > once in a while, someone such as yourself will come along and say > something along the lines of, "Oh, you shouldn't do that because > scenario X might possibly happen." But they never post an alternative, > which accomplishes the same goal without the perceived pitfall. I tend to be amused when someone such as yourself expects me to solve a problem for them which can be solved by using the 'delete' key. You have the ideal solution for your needs. I have one for mine. Mine has the benefit of the judgement and decision making being made by a human being. > So, for those who think the above rule is some kind of evil incarnate > because Something Bad Might Happen - if you really want to talk someone > out of using such rules, provide an alternative that gives the same > functionality, without causing the Something Bad That Might Happen. :-) This is a straitjacket requirement which brooks no alternative view. What it says is "Give me an answer formulated in my terms". Sorry, you are seeking a technical solution to a social problem. It doesn't exist. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130302200410.GR14686@desktop
