124348 - [RFE] Bounce button in mailreader

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 109930

(MailNews Core :: Filters, enhancement)

Description

[Thomas Wabner]

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020206
BuildID:    20020201



Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.include the feature
2.
3.

There is an googd Idea to add an bounce-Button in the front a la like reply to
filter the spam out from the mail and send an bounce back, so the spam list wont
delete my name. The same Idea is to include a bounce-rule in the mail-filter
popup ala like move to or so on and I can filter my spam an write back an bounce
(if i will)

That would be great and many people would loves this and (at this time) want this.

Comment 1

[Arthur]

I don't know exactly what you mean by 'bounce'. Do you mean, that the mail
should get returned as 'non-deliverable'? That could be a bit difficult, as this
is the task of a smtp-server and not a mail client. But I would at least love to
sea a addable button for automatically moving mail into a special folder.

Comment 2

[Thomas Wabner]

I would like that mozilla simulates the behaviour of the mail delivery system in
this case, so that the sender belives that the email address is invalid (invalid
user). The mail delivery system automatically rejects messages for unknow users,
this is know as bouncing them. Spammers usually remove the addres then from
their database.
I know that simmiliar effect could be achive by e.g. using procmail with
filtering rules, but this requires administrative acces to the mailing system,
which end users usually do not have.

Comment 3

[Pierre Chanial]

dupe of bug 109930 or 12916, as you wish.

Comment 4

[Arthur]

I'd say a dupe of bug 109930. Marking as that. I fear, that this will simply
mean that spammers don't remove any messages at all from their databases (most
of them don't do that anyway, you get more money for a database which contains a
few millions of invalid adresses extra)...

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 109930 ***

Comment 5

[laurel]

marking verified as duplicate