On Mon, 2007-10-15, David F. Skoll wrote: > Jeff Macdonald wrote: >> perhaps 'inline-bounce' is better? Or 'inband-bounce'? I've heard of >> both from my MTA vendor.
> "Bounce" has yet another meaning. I believe Mutt refers to > redirecting e-mail as "bouncing" it. In other words, if mail from > [EMAIL PROTECTED] comes in to [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob can "bounce" it > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it appears to come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I think we should avoid "bounce" completely. We should say "reject > with an SMTP failure code" and "generate a failure notification message" > because those phrases are unambiguous. "Bounce" causes a lot of confusion, I believe, because it implies that the same message is being handled. Because of this the redirection usage makes more sense than the rejection usage. It seem that rejection should cause, directly or indirectly, a *new* message which contains rejection information as well as possibly a *copy* of part or all of the original message to be generated and sent to the MAIL FROM address. I think that "return address", analogous to the snail mail equivalent, would be the best name. (It's interesting that that address is put into the "Return-Path" header field when the message is finally delivered.) -- Bill McQuillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
