For those of us that feel strongly that email should be a reliable transport medium.

Julian Field mailscanner at
Tue Feb 10 21:33:08 GMT 2004

At 21:21 10/02/2004, you wrote:
>On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 15:56, Julian Field wrote:
> > But in the meantime, does anyone have any good ideas for a happy medium,
> > such as enabling it but not documenting it, or producing a nasty log
> > message if it is used, or something like that?
> > All constructive ideas are most welcome.
> > --
> > Julian Field
>Don't know if it is possible, but have an option where you can list your
>hosted domains and then have an option to limit bounce messages to just
>those those domains in the TO/FROM.  This would let providers inform
>their customers that something did not go through while not polluting
>the rest of the net.  I think that this would make everyone (mostly)

That can already be done with rulesets. However...

How about yet another configuration option:
This would just apply to the spam "bounce" action. It would be a
configuration option called something like "Enable Spam Bounces".

Maybe the default configuration should point to a ruleset that defaults to
no but has a sample line in it which switches it on for *
The ruleset would have a strongly worded header at the top explaining why
you shouldn't use it. But I would have to document the "bounce" action to
make it clear why this extra configuration option existed.

That way an administrator has to get an idea about rulesets before they can
make this work. People wouldn't be able to turn it on by mistake.

What do you think?
Julian Field
Professional Support Services at
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654

More information about the MailScanner mailing list