----- Original Message -----
From: <Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu>
To: "Tony Finch" <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at>
Cc: <ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: Bounce/System Notification Address Verification
The first rule of any protocol is that it has to interoperate with itself.
The fact that this design *is* prone to disastrous loops when it
encounters
other CBV systems with similar design flaws shows that the concept is
flawed.
No does not show the concept is FLAWED, it shows the implementation is
flawed.
Two different things.
To state the concept of a CBV is flawed is to state the BOUNCE operation is
flawed as well because there is no trust on the validity of the return path.
So by your thinking:
- why have a bounce concept at all?
- why even have a bounce requirement in the specification?
With your thinking, the return path entity is useless.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com