John C Klensin wrote:
In either case, a formal handoff of responsibility for
the message occurs: the protocol requires that a server
MUST accept responsibility for either delivering a
message or properly reporting the failure to do so.
I think this is a simple rewording of a clear statement.
The only unclear thing to me is:
"...properly reporting the failure to do so."
Does everyone understand this to mean reporting the failure
to the sender (in the case of a non-null Return-Path) or to
some administrator (in the case of a null Return-Path)? If everyone
clearly understands it this way, then it's fine. Otherwise, we may
want to spell it out. Otherwise, someone might consider dropping
an e-mail and letting an administrator know about it to be
"properly reporting the failure".
How about:
In either case, a formal handoff of responsibility for
the message occurs: the protocol requires that a server
MUST accept responsibility for either delivering a
message or properly reporting the failure to do so.
A proper failure report MUST consist of a notification to the
sender of the message if the original message has a non-null
return-path, or a notification to an administrator of the
SMTP server if the message has a null return-path.
Or am I worrying too much? :-)
Regards,
David.