On 11-Feb-2010, at 15:42, Kris Deugau wrote:
>
> Hmm. I'd say the balance is slightly in favour of Mike's system - you CAN
> NOT *prevent* all false-positives, so providing some way to let senders know
> relatively quickly that their mail got caught seems to me to be a positive.
An NDN means that a message was NOT DELIVERED. The natural thing to do when you
get an NDN is to double check the address you sent to and if that is right then
decide if it's worth trying to get the message through. If it is, you either
re-craft the message, or you send it from another source. Or your forget about
it and consider the message undelivered. To then have a undelivered message
turn out to have been successfully delivered simply tells me that that person's
mailserver is unreliable.
This means that Mike's method is likely to create duplicate messages, and is
guaranteed to create confusion about whether a specific message was delivered.
Imagine these messages being generated by a mailing list.
Never having seen one of the NDNs from Mike's system, I can't say exactly what
they look like, but since I deal with severely malformed and suspicious NDNs
every single day, it is very unlikely that I would look at any URL inside a
NDN, much less even consider clicking on it.
--
NO ONE CARES WHAT MY DEFINITION OF "IS" IS
Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF02
