On 8/29/20 6:50 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
According to the IETF, every bounce is a DSN but not every DSN is a bounce.
Would you please cite your source?
I also wonder if we're having somewhat of a semantic issue. I'm
specifically referring to a bounce (which is a superset of the latter)
that is formatted per RFC 3464 -- An Extensible Message Format for
Delivery Status Notifications (which is a subset of the former).
Per RFC 3462 § 2 — Format of a Delivery Status Notification — A DSN is a
MIME message with a top-level content-type of multipart/report (defined
in [REPORT]). When a multipart/report content is used to transmit a DSN:
(a) The report-type parameter of the multipart/report content is
"delivery-status".
(b) The first component of the multipart/report contains a
human-readable explanation of the DSN, as described in [REPORT].
(c) The second component of the multipart/report is of content-type
message/delivery-status, described in section 2.1 of this document.
(d) If the original message or a portion of the message is to be
returned to the sender, it appears as the third component of the
multipart/report.
Not all bounces conform to these specifications, ergo not all bounces
are a DSN (as specified by RFC 3462). All (failure) DSNs are bounces.
Aside: I guess there are also success DSNs. I don't know if they would
be considered a bounce or not. They are an email about the delivery of
another email, thus fall into the category of bounce like email.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
