Thomas a écrit : > Wietse Venema wrote: >> Accepting mail for a non-existent user and then dropping the bounce >> is the wrong solution for the wrong problem. >> I will fight tooth and nail against the idiots that encourage such >> preposterous configuration. >> > > I know that :) > I was just saying that there ARE numerous mail servers that are > configured this way - and it is a valid question how to configure a mail > server this way, IMHO. > Also, anybody is free to configure it exactly this way ... even if that > is problematic in times. >
sure, but we only talk about people who "take their responsibility seriously". Citing RFC 5321: <cite> 6.1. Reliable Delivery and Replies by Email When the receiver-SMTP accepts a piece of mail (by sending a "250 OK" message in response to DATA), it is accepting responsibility for delivering or relaying the message. It must take this responsibility seriously. It MUST NOT lose the message for frivolous reasons, such as because the host later crashes or because of a predictable resource shortage. Some reasons that are not considered frivolous are discussed in the next subsection and in Section 7.8. If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message. </cite> > Mostly, major companies have such a configuration - i think, they want > to stop tries to figure out the real mail addresses and find real people > this way. > > For example: > > Trying josef.ackerm...@deutsche-bank.de may be the right mail address - > if my test mail get´s rejected, i know that it is NOT. > If the reject is silent, everything is still open - sometimes a better > solution! > which annoys legitimate senders more than spammers. if want to get in touch with old Joe Smith and I know he is at acme.example, I can no more try joe.sm...@acme.example. if I send you mail but type t...@yourdomain, I will get no error and thus assume that you got it... once again, counter measures that break the reliability of the email system are bad. > Just some thoughts ... >
