On Mit, 2011-02-23 at 18:48 +0000, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:30:20 +0100
[...]
> That's true for person to person mail, but there are kinds of mail
> where loss is inconsequential and no-one is going to read the DSNs
> e.g. newsletters.
Sounds like a spammer? SCNR ....
And that's a decision on the newsletter-sender side so they should (or
better must) accept the DSNs and ignore them themselves.
Simply not accepting them pushes *their* job, work and effort out to the
ones which are "spammed" by the newsletters (or which happen to run the
mail hub in between) filling their queues and wasting resources to try
to deliver these mails.
BTW is it IMNSHO a very bad practice of these "newsletter senders" to
completely ignore that (which is IMNSHO another sign of spamming - if
you try to be serious, you shouldn't send out mail to addresses which
you (can/should) know that they do not exist). If a mailbox vanishes
(which should be identifiable from the error message), one should plain
simply remove that address from the newsletter (or at the very least
deactivate delivery).
Bernd
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : be...@petrovitsch.priv.at
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
