Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:09:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > you obviously don't understand how bouncing (in the MUA sense of the
> > word, rather than the MTA sense) a message works.
>
> Quite the contrary, I do.
no, you obviously do not.
> An MUA is supposed to generate a *new* message, and then deliver the
> message to the stated recipients.
>
> An MTA has two usual options; one is to generate a new message, the
> other is to forward an existing message, but in the latter case, it
> isn't supposed to modify the
you've never heard of any of the classic unix MUAs like elm then? many
MUAs since (at least) then have had the ability to "bounce" a message,
an action which operates precisely as i described. some implementations
add Resent-{From,Date,To,Message-Id} headers, but procmail doesn't and i
don't care enough about it to bother adding them myself with formail.
> > the following is NOT forgery. it is returning your unwanted mail to
> > you, exactly as it was received.
>
> "exactly as it was received" means without modification. You are
> modifying the messages.
wow! you've caught me out. i said "exactly as it was received" AND i
also said "with the go-away message attached". shocking. how
dreadfully naive of me to assume that a [presumed, but with mounting
evidence to the contrary] intelligent reader would be able to parse that
and acquire the meaning.
somehow i just knew that you were going to make a pedantic point of
this, but i can't spend all my time catering to the foibles of pedants
and their amazing ability to pervert the english language into
meaningless gibberish.
now, have you quite finished wasting everyone's time with pedantic
drivel?
good. that will be all.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Reply to: