feature request - FW: Just the notification for spam?

Furnish, Trever G TGFurnish at HERFF-JONES.COM
Wed Jan 21 22:03:01 GMT 2004

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Bonivart [mailto:peter at UCGBOOK.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 1:15 PM
> Subject: Re: feature request - FW: Just the notification for spam?
> Wouldn't the attachment action pretty much do what you want?
> It sends a
> customizable message to the recipient who can choose to open the
> attachment...is that too simple? ;-)
> I might be completely wrong of course. :-)

Nope, it doesn't, because:

1. There's the additional bandwidth being wasted to deliver all those

2. I have no record of whether the user decided to open the message.

3. It doesn't facilitate marking the message as ham or several other nice
features that are enabled by being able to deal with the message in its
unaltered state.

A bit more info: I already have MailWatch set up and like it very much - in
fact I've customized the authentication and submitted a few itty bitty tiny
teeny bits to Steve that have been since included.  And I'm closely
following his current work, but management's asked that users not be 1)
required to authenticate or 2) have to go check a web page to find out
whether a message was blocked or 3) be presented with any interface they're
likely to ask questions about.

Being able to send a custom notification to the user without actually
sending the original message would neatly circumvent any need for user
authentication - if you get the notification, you're authenticated.

It would mean a user wouldn't need to go to a web page to see if a message
was blocked - just look at the folder you filter your spam messages into and
see if it's there.

And the interface would be much simpler than MailWatch's just because it
would only be presenting information related to one message at a time - and
probably would have only a few buttons and a few lines of text, in my case.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list