[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Virtual last call on "bounce"

2005-09-11 11:28:46

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>

The wind seems to be blowing in the direction of removing the
term "bounce" from 2821bis.  Different people have different
reasons, but I don't think I've detected anyone who has claimed
that there is value in leaving it in.

All things being relative, the question is what term to use in its stead.

I suggest:  return address.

Isn't this more about what a "reject" operation means?  x821 or x822 form of
system notification?

It is precise, accurate, correlates with a common, non-electronic term,
already has substantial use within the community.

Its all relative. If I am speaking to an END-USER, the return address will
imply the original AUTHOR of the message. If am speaking to an SMTP
knowledgable person, developer and maybe administrator, the return-address
MAY be assumed to be the bounce (MAIL FROM) address which may or may not be
the "author address."

The only argument in favor of retaining 'bounce' is historical usage, but
that's the kind of thinking that makes things never change...

A bounce is precise, accurate and correlates with a very common technical
understood process and already has substantial use within the technical
community.  Since this all related to a technical document, it makes clear
and common sense to keep with concise definition and understanding than to
try to remove it in lieu of something else.

In addition, I know many don't wish to hear this and/or (mistakenly) feel it
doesn't play a role , but there is a strong legal precedence found in US
ECPA provisions in making sure that the precise form of EMAIL REJECTION is
understood as it relates to "user intent and expectations."

A SMTP level rejection notification satisfies this US ECPA "user intent and
expectation".  A delayed ACCEPT/BOUNCE or NDN system message keeps and
satisfies this US ECPA "user intent and expectation" as well.  Push comes to
shove, to ignore this second aspect is risking business operations and in my
view, it is not very responsible for 2821bis to promote any form of post
smtp "drops" of mail.  I understand the ANTI-SPAM era conflicts with this,
but this is exactly why it is extremely important that we understand very
clearly what form of rejections we have available.

I personally have no problem replacing BOUNCE for NDN. I can understand it.
But in general who is that going to help?  The new school or the old school?
or both?  If the new school, well there is a lot more in the 2821bis
document that needs major cleanup and more reflections with the convergence
of evolved and integrated email related technologies.

Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.

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