[Top] [All Lists]

Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?

2007-10-13 16:25:12

--On Saturday, 13 October, 2007 12:48 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:



In the Internet Mail Architecture draft:


There terms "Bounce Handler" and "Bounce address" are used.
As the document notes, the terms are not the nicest, but they
seem to be the most prevalent.

(Earlier drafts attempted to use the term "Notices" but this
gained to traction.)

There has been some community input suggesting that "Return
[Path] address" and "Return Handler" would be better choices.

Again, please note that the document attempts to use whatever
is already dominant in the community.

This is not an exercise in what any of us would prefer, but
what we think already has the most traction in the community
(or is most likely to gain that traction.)

I'm soliciting comments.

Dave, I believe the prevalent terminology is "bounce" and that
it has been the prevalent terminology almost as long as I can
remember.  However, because there is a movement to prohibit
non-delivery notification messages and stress SMTP-time
rejections instead, we were persuaded to modify 2821bis to
remove the word "bounce" and more clearly distinguish between
the "rejection" and "NDN" cases.

I suspect this does not answer your question, but it is the only
insight I have on the subject.