Tony Finch wrote:
2821 uses "bounce" informally but doesn't define it or the
Do we at least have "consensus" that the informal usage of
"bounce" in 2821 does not reflect what most users consider
as "bounce", and in 2821bis we'd be better off if we use
only "reject" or "NDN" ?
And between the lines (not necessarily explicit) I'd like
to have it clear that "accept-on-probation" (because you
can always "bounce" later) is a _bad_ strategy today, and
that "reject a.s.a.p." generally causes less harm.
The old texts always had it clear that "accept" means the
responsibility to deliver (=> report problems as "bounce").
But they did not talk about the default case today, it's
impossible to report any problems as "bounce" to the real
sender if that sender is a spammer forging the MAIL FROM.
RfC 1123 and all later texts were broken wrt this problem,
and 2821bis should acknowledge this: "Yes, it worked as
designed for 821, but 1123 didn't only drop source routes,
it also dropped the [meep] ball while it was at it". And
2821bis as a "ball in play again" standard after 16 years.