Re: Do the must 'bounce' rules need to be relaxed for virus infected mes

> >    An SMTP server MAY decide not to send the "undeliverable
> > mail"    notification message when it can determined that the
> > original    message had malicious or deceitful intent.
> > Determination of    such intent is beyond the scope of this
> > specification.
> >
> > This would be an accurate reflection of what many servers are
> > doing today.
> This seems much closer to what I think would be appropriate, although 
> I'd prefer, e.g., to see "be accurately" or "be positively" in front 
> of "determined".
"positively determined" or "reliably determined" roughly fits my sense 
of what is appropriate, though I'd be more comfortable if there were 
some examples for both what was reliable and what was not considered 
sufficiently reliable.
for instance, I don't think it would be acceptable to silently drop 
messages on the basis of an SPF record, because the problem could 
actually be a configuration error rather than malice or deceit.