Frank Ellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Crocker wrote: > >> There terms "Bounce Handler" and "Bounce address" are used. > > In 2.1.3 you say "bounce handling address". That's a neologism > for a concept that already has more than enough names.
I have sympathy for that name. I think we're heading towards models where the RFC2821 MAIL FROM points to an MTA near the submission server which will redirect DSNs in accordance with directives from the originator -- after passing some validity tests. Dave Crocker (and others) set out this idea in Bounce Address Tag Verification: http://mipassoc.org/batv/ and I'm convinced other proposals along these lines will follow. (Disclaimer: I'm working on one myself.) > Why not simply use "envelope sender address" as in the DSN RFCs ? I could live with that, too. I tend to think of it as a status notification address. "Bounce" in the name is problemmatic because folks sometimes refer to an error _during_ the SMTP connection as a "bounce". This, IMHO, is just plain wrong; but perhaps we have already lost that battle... -- John Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
