Misleading the user into thinking that he's reducing bounces is
unacceptable. I am extremely firmly opposed to any changes that allow
refuse and reject to have the exact same results from the users/victim's
viewpoint. The AU's email system is compliant or it isn't. Saying the
system is compliant when just a piece theoretically could be, but when
in actual use, the system isn't compliant makes no sense. It seems
we'll have to go for rough consensus, noting this as a point of
disagreement.
Consider: You can't deduce that 'a boa constrictor is harmless' from the
fact that 'a dead boa constrictor is harmless'.
On 8/23/05 1:01 PM, Mark E. Mallett sent forth electrons to convey:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:21:39PM -0700, Matthew Elvey wrote:
No, that doesn't address my concern from a previous email:
On 8/19/05 2:18 PM, Matthew Elvey sent forth electrons to convey:
...[If] a Sieve script running on Dest encounters a 'refuse', and
sends a 550 to Relay 2, if Relay 2 then generates a bounce, instead of
sending a 550 to MSA, then Dest MUST NOT be considered compliant with
'refuse'.
+------------+ +-----------+
| Originator | | Recipient |
+-----+------+ +-----------+
| ^
| Internet |
| ___^___ |
V / \ |
+---------+ +--------+ +---------+ +----+----+
| | | | | | | |
| Source +--->| MSA +------>| Relay2 +----> | Dest |
| | | | | | | |
+----+----+ +--------+ +---------+ +---------+
\_________Destination_AU__________/
That's why we need something like "between Administrative Units" of
"over the open Internet".