On Mon, 2007-10-15, David F. Skoll wrote:
Jeff Macdonald wrote:
perhaps 'inline-bounce' is better? Or 'inband-bounce'? I've heard of
both from my MTA vendor.
"Bounce" has yet another meaning. I believe Mutt refers to
redirecting e-mail as "bouncing" it. In other words, if mail from
someone(_at_)example(_dot_)net comes in to bob(_at_)example(_dot_)com, Bob
can "bounce" it
to sue(_at_)example(_dot_)org and it appears to come from
someone(_at_)example(_dot_)net(_dot_)
I think we should avoid "bounce" completely. We should say "reject
with an SMTP failure code" and "generate a failure notification message"
because those phrases are unambiguous.
"Bounce" causes a lot of confusion, I believe, because it implies that the
same message is being handled. Because of this the redirection usage makes
more sense than the rejection usage.
It seem that rejection should cause, directly or indirectly, a *new*
message which contains rejection information as well as possibly a *copy*
of part or all of the original message to be generated and sent to the MAIL
FROM address.
I think that "return address", analogous to the snail mail equivalent, would
be the best name. (It's interesting that that address is put into the
"Return-Path" header field when the message is finally delivered.)
--
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>