On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Rich Kulawiec <r...@gsp.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 08:20:36PM -0500, William Herrin wrote: >> Whine all you want about backscatter but until you propose a >> comprehensive solution that's still reasonably compatible with RFC >> 2821's section 3.7 you're just talking trash. > > We're well past that. Every minimally-competent postmaster on this > planet knows that clause became operationally obsolete years > ago [1], and has configured their mail systems to always reject, > never bounce. [2]
Rich, Indeed, and the ones who are more than minimally competent have considered the protocol as a whole and come to understand that at a technical level the "reject don't bounce" theory has more holes in it than you can shake a stick at. Find me a comprehensive solution and I'll help you write the I-D but mere trash-talk about the people who respect SMTP's architecture is unhelpful. On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:06 AM, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: > 5321 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. J. Klensin. October 2008. (Format: > TXT=225929 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC2821) (Updates RFC1123) (Status: > DRAFT STANDARD) > > It's been done already. It's been quoted in this thread even. > There's no sense in Rick re-inventing the wheel when > John Klensin and friends already > fixed the flat and rebalanced it a year and a half ago. They didn't exactly fix it. What they did is reinforce the importance of generating a bounce message by keeping the existing "must" language from 2821 but adding: "A server MAY attempt to verify the return path before using its address for delivery notifications" Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
