"Jon Kyme" <jrk(_at_)merseymail(_dot_)com> wrote:
In the interest of consensus (and to avoid rehashing some old discussions),
it might be better if we leave out "responsibility". It's not clear to me
that it's crucial in what we're trying to do, which is to provide a means
of determining if a domain is "happy" to have its name used in this field.
Or, it's verifying (at some level), that the bounce path exists.
RFC 2821 doesn't provide for bounce-path verification, but it
requires that a message be delivered or bounced. Without bounce-path
verification, an MTA may accept a message, and then be forced to
discard it as un-bouncable.
Alan DeKok.