Frank Ellermann <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
There terms "Bounce Handler" and "Bounce address" are used.
In 2.1.3 you say "bounce handling address". That's a neologism
for a concept that already has more than enough names.
I have sympathy for that name. I think we're heading towards
models where the RFC2821 MAIL FROM points to an MTA near the submission
server which will redirect DSNs in accordance with directives from
the originator -- after passing some validity tests. Dave Crocker (and
others) set out this idea in Bounce Address Tag Verification:
and I'm convinced other proposals along these lines will follow.
(Disclaimer: I'm working on one myself.)
Why not simply use "envelope sender address" as in the DSN RFCs ?
I could live with that, too. I tend to think of it as a status
"Bounce" in the name is problemmatic because folks sometimes refer
to an error _during_ the SMTP connection as a "bounce". This, IMHO,
is just plain wrong; but perhaps we have already lost that battle...
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>