The proposal is that MTAs reject messages before acceptance rather than
bounce them.
On the other side we have the statement that this will kill UUCP.
This is really a stretch. UUCP is fully capable of handling message
rejection. So no matter how many sites start stop accepting invalid mail
and responding later with a DSN in favor of rejecting the message promptly
while still connected, there is no adverse affect on UUCP sites.
It is possible that some site might take this one step farther (one step
too far?) and stop accepting bounce messages entirely on the grounds that
they were no longer necessary. I haven't read anything here that suggests
that as a course of action. That would adversely affect the ability of
UUCP sites to notify those over-zelous sites that their mail had bounced.
It wouldn't affect anyone else, and it wouldn't affect any valid mail.
So why is this so controversial?
Daniel Feenberg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg