[Top] [All Lists]

MDNs vs. DSNs

1999-09-08 18:13:26
I'm probably resurrecting a dead horse here, but let's see.

Generating MDN's in our implementation is not possible at this point,
yet we want to support the reject action.  Aside from all the features
provided by supporting RFC 2298, why is an MDN an absolute requirement?

Is there anyway we might be able to change the wording in 4.1 to read:

   The optional "reject" action refuses delivery of a message by sending

   back an [MDN] or [DSN] to the sender.

   Example:  if header :contains "from" "coyote(_at_)znic(_dot_)net" {
                reject "I am not taking mail from you, and I don't want
                your birdseed, either!";

   A reject message SHOULD take the form of a failure MDN but MAY be a
DSN as specified  by
   [MDN] [DSN].

... continued specifics about MDN verbage ...

Regardless of whether we can change the wording at all, the second
sentence in the first paragraph of 4.1 should start with a capital R.

In addition, in defining the action 'redirect' we should define the
behavior without forcing someone to know what a .forward file using
sendmail under UNIX does.  In other words we should define it in
explicit terms???

Sam Robertson

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>