[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Bounce/System Notification Address Verification

2005-06-29 05:09:29

On Wed June 29 2005 00:41, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:

I will rephrase that to be "Since in 98% of the time there is only 
one Recipient in a <> message, if the sender has some need/desire to 
send a multi-recipient <> message, then such sender should create a 
separate copy for each recipient and thus send them as 
single-recipient copies".

Where precisely does that "98%" figure come from?  Do you have statistics
on all messages sent through all servers?  Or was the number plucked out
of thin air, with no more validity than any other random number between
0% and 100%?

As Keith has noted, there is no need or value in imposing such a new
requirement at this late date.

Thus puts the burden of respecting the  
one-recipient-per-<>-message "rule" where it belongs - on those 
processes that generate those 2% of the <> Messages by requiring them 
to make the effort to conform (ie: By sending multiple 
single-recipient copies).

You have already admitted that there is no such rule.  And I remind you
that an earlier statement of yours began with "OTOH: There is no
requirement that"; sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  We are
all agreed that there is no requirement that a message with a null
return path be limited to a single recipient.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>