Closed Bug 11769 Opened 21 years ago Closed 9 years ago
Give filters capability to bounce back e-mail
from email@example.com: --- I suggest a bounce option in filters and for individual messages. Ideally this would send the mail back to the sender showing that it was refused by the recipient. Of course it would become necessary to then dispose of any bounced message that comes back as undeliverable to the indicated sender. --- We might have to lookup an RFC for how bounced messages are supposed to look, or we may find that there's no spec for how a CLIENT is supposed to bounce messages... but it would still be cool.
setting M15. BTW, I really wish we had this feature.
Bulk-resolving requests for enhancement as "later" to get them off the Seamonkey bug tracking radar. Even though these bugs are not "open" in bugzilla, we welcome fixes and improvements in these areas at any time. Mail/news RFEs continue to be tracked on http://www.mozilla.org/mailnews/jobs.html
Reopen mail/news HELP WANTED bugs and reassign to firstname.lastname@example.org
I don't think this should be implemented if there's the possibility for infinite bouncing.
Summary: [HELP WANTED]Give filters capability to bounce e-mail. → Give filters capability to bounce e-mail.
Whiteboard: HELP WANTED
Target Milestone: M15
OS: Linux → All
QA Contact: lchiang → laurel
Hardware: PC → All
Maybe a header to indicate that mozilla has bounced it, and then drop it if it comes back? (just my suggestion)
KMail, an open source mail client on KDE/Linux has this feature, both as an action to be taken on specific emails and as a filter action.
Bug #12916 is not related to this bug. 12916 is about redirecting emails, like forwarding except that the sender header is unchanged. Bug #109930 is about forging a server bounce. Updating dependency to reflect...
Updating summary to indicate more clearly that this is about bouncing back to original sender. Ther term "bounce" is used in many other clients to redirect original email to another recipient.
Summary: Give filters capability to bounce e-mail. → Give filters capability to bounce back e-mail.
That would be nice, but the true factor is that 95% of all SPAM mail, if not more, has a false return path which means the message would never be sendable back to its original sender. Sad but true.
You would avoid the bounced mail itself bouncing simply by setting its envelope sender address to blank (in the SMTP conversation, quite independent of any of the message headers). This is what MTAs do. If you View Source for a typical delivery-failure report you will see Return-Path: <> From: MAILER-DAEMON@... Return-Path is added at final delivery (i.e. by the last MTA) and captures the empty envelope sender address.
I agree - this would be nice, regardless how possibly ineffective it might be. Now if only I knew enough about C++ to help (still learning right now). I'll throw a vote towards this - I haven't used most of the votes I've got anyways. This feature is also in MailWasher. Also, seeing as I've switched to Firebird and I'm not going to go back to Mozilla again, will this bug work for Thunderbird or should I post a Thunderbird-specific bug? (I checked the TB bugs, and right now this would be a non-dup.)
Isn't this a dupe of bug 11034?
No. See bug 11034 comment 24, if I'm not completely misunderstanding the situation.
I just tried out MailWasher and this and their learning filters are the things which I think would be real great enhancements to Mozilla and Firebird. Can't help in developing as I don't know C++ but would be happy in helping in the testing.
Bouncing after-the-fact (as opposed to refusing incoming mail) is a bad idea, it contributes more to the spam "problem" than to its solution: see http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html for a more detailed explanation. I move this bug be WONTFIXed.
Filter on "Nobody_NScomTLD_20080620"
QA Contact: laurel → backend
(In reply to comment #17) > depends on bug 12916 > dup of bug 11034 I agee.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Duplicate of bug: 11034
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.