On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
I'd like to see this changed into "sending a DSN" (or something
similar) in stead of "bouncing". A bounce is like hitting a wall
(not getting in), not a notification message.
(1) DSNs are an extension so cannot be required by the base spec.
(2a) I think that it is excessively short-termist to care too much about
when a rejection occurs and where the bounce message is generated. If
spammers are driven to use smart hosts or submission servers as their
delivery mechanism instead of direct-to-MX spamming, then early rejection
will go back to being just an optimisation.
(2b) Having said that it's unimportant, I still wish to say that in my
experience, the terms "reject" or "SMTP-time reject" are used for 5xy
error replies, whereas "bounce" or "accept-and-bounce" are used for a
message that is accepted but subsequently results in an error message
being sent to the return path.
This relates to the discussion about failures and errors.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST. MODERATE OR
GOOD.