[Top] [All Lists]

rfc2821bis-03 Issue 25: Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25

2007-04-30 10:42:25

--On Monday, 30 April, 2007 11:10 -0400 "David F. Skoll"
<dfs(_at_)roaringpenguin(_dot_)com> wrote:

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.

Without commenting on whether or not this is the best approach,
or even a good idea, one could probably replace the strong
clause starting with ", the server MUST..." with some words that
non-normatively advised that behavior.  There are two problems
with the strong version: one is that it would be a new
requirement, as you suggest and the second is that we have
carefully avoided imposing requirements on post-delivery (or
post-acceptance) behavior such as logging because such behavior
is not observable on the wire.