-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:27 AM
To: 'Jon Kyme'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on
RFC2821 MAIL FROM?
heh. But think, those bounces might be telling you about delivery
failures following "broken" forwarding :-)
Most are adverts from broken anti-virus filters.
If I send email and someone does not respond I either ignore
or I follow up with a phone call.
I think we also need a completeness indicator, so you can
say 'this
is the complete set of my outgoing MTAs or these are
member of the
set of my outgoing MTAs'.
OK, I'll bite. What's the advantage in listing only a proper subset?
If there is an authorization mechanism in place at the
receiver end you can still take the benefit of accreditation
even though you might not be able guarantee that you were
able to list out every one of your legitimate edge email servers.
Phill
I agree with Phill here. It seems there are lots of organizations who
operate in a decentralized manner. They may find it difficult to even
locate all their outbound email servers, as scary as that may seem.
Even small organizations that outsource email services or other
applications may find it hard to locate all the servers sending on their
behalf. It's useful to be able to say "these are the servers I have
identified so far -- go ahead and acredit them. But I may also send
mail from other servers not listed here -- please be merciful" Or words
to that effect. Of course its up to the receiver to decide what to do
when mail is received from an "unlisted" MTA, and the sender has to
accept the risk their mail may not be treated "mercifully."