John Leslie wrote:
I claim this data supports my contention that folks don't _use_
the NDNs that they get.
I don't agree. I do agree that almost nobody uses or understands
the content of the NDNs they get. However, I would guess that anywhere
from 2% to 10% of people use the *fact* that they received an NDN to take
further action. We deal with many unsophisticated users, and although they
have no clue what an NDN means, the receipt of one prompts them to contact
their helpdesk person or the intended recipient (if they can figure out
that much...)
Getting back to the question, "properly report" involves, at the
minimum, logging the incident so that it's _possible_ to reconstruct
what happened. I'd like to suggest forwarding those log entries to
the client you received the message from, but I suspect that exceeds
our charter.
I think it should read something like this:
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 SHOULD consist of a notification sent
to the Return-Path of the original message. Where this is not
possible (because of a blank Return-Path) or not desirable
(because the Return-Path is untrusted for local policy
reasons), the server MUST record enough information for a
human operator to reconstruct the nature of the delivery
failure, the original Return-Path and the addresses of the
original recipients.
I fear, though, that may exceed the charter as you say.
Regards,
David.