On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:51:30 +0200, Alessandro Vesely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: > > 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? > > That question seems ill-conditioned to me. It is semantically correct to > reject > mail because the *recipient* is undeliverable.
The question is written as intended, but we appear to be in agreement. I still want to know why sender verification is a good idea, though. If the recipient validation is sufficient to reduce backscatter and queue cloggage, why *are* we insisting upon a semantic disapproval of invalid sender addresses? What kind of high horse are we on, to insist that even under normal mail delivery circumstances, sender addresses of less-than-perfect form may not be used? Certainly, to me, this looks like an anti-spam tool which, while tempting to the eye of the postmaster wishing to reduce tempfailing blowback, is already seeing diminished usefullness and which is known to break legitimate mail. 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/
