Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Do we at least have "consensus" that the informal usage of
"bounce" in 2821 does not reflect what most users consider
as "bounce",
No. Mutt and elm users think that, but AFAICT other MUA
users don't.
MUAs allowing to "emulate" bounces (MAIL FROM:<> or completely
bogus alternatives) are irrelevant for 2821bis, that could be
a case for abuse reports. And if other MUAs have a function
"bounce" which is in essence some "Resent-*-style forwarding",
then it's also irrelevant for 2821bis => let (2)822(bis), PRA,
and 2476ter fight it out.
If we just stay away from the term "bounce" or mention it only
once informally in brackets and quoted in conjunction with NDN,
it should be good enough for 2821bis.
Perhaps, but you need other arguments.
There are no other arguments from my POV, different users have
completely different ideas what a "bounce" is, and the one 2821
"bounce" == reject (informally) only increased this confusion.
We're hard pressed to get terms like "sender", "originator",
"forward", and "gateway" right - or at least don't make it
worse - but for "bounce" there are two simple solutions (see
above). If you don't like them please offer another way. It
is no 821-term, we're not forced to use it at all in 2821bis.
Bye, Frank