Hi all, Before this discussion goes further, I want to just get this bit sorted out, just in case people don't see a relationship between the two contenders in this dilema (as indicated in the Subject line) ...
On Fri, 02 May 2008 05:11:33 -0400, Hector Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: [...] > > 1. I am naive enough to receive mail from non-verifiable senders. > > Yes. <g> To be sure, it sounds like the right thing to do. As yet, though, there's no justification in doing it other than that queue clogging will often result if you don't. Is it *semantically* correct to reject mail just because bounces for the sender are undeliverable? If it isn't, fine - let's get to work on standardising a way for domains to indicate that they don't want mail, and they'll live happily ever afterward not knowing that mail they originated (or not, but that's irrelevant) didn't get through. We can try and fail to deliver our DSNs straight away, keep backup MXs working without fuss, etc, etc, and still have nice, clean queues without going to extraordinary, expensive lengths to verify sender addresses. To relate to the original question, then: if we all agreed to keep from generating DSNs for mailboxes or hosts we take care of to the best of our abilities, and we can do that already using RCPT verification to whatever extent which is easy to set up and inexpensive, we'll have the DSN problem sorted. If I accept mail for invalid senders, we can only hope that the senders help us out by telling us they don't want mail; we'll deliver mail from invalid senders in the usual way, but if we do have to generate a DSN it's for some legitimate reason and, should the sender not want them, we'll happily throw them away under direction from the sender's DNS. That's the dilema: is our priority mail queues or is it the deliverability of errors? We'd want deliverable errors, of course, but given a choice of having the mail and failing to return a DSN on those rare occasions when it's necessary and just not having the mail at all, I know which I'd go for: the first. And since the DSNs are the problem here, destined for nowhere, we should, by cooperative increments of DNS zones by the people, gradually get rid of the long delays usually associated with queued DSNs. The incentive for publishing whether or not you want mail can easily be that it could be used by those who want to reject senders who also happen not to receive, if desired. Besides, you can't argue lost DSNs when the sender is invalid, any more than if it were <>; and that's often what these noreply-style sender addresses are for. But somehow, you can argue that losing mail isn't cool. Cheers, Sabahattin -- Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail<at>sabahattin<dash>gucukoglu<dot>com> Address harvesters, snag this: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +44 20 88008915 Mobile: +44 7986 053399 http://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/
