Carl S. Gutekunst wrote:
It certainly seems sensible; my only hesitation is simply that I haven't
heard it used before, despite the wide-spread recognition of the
Return-Path header field. I'm certainly in a position to use it and see
people's reactions, though.
It's clear that at least some (substantial) portion of the email community is
solidly entrenched in using a term that includes the word 'bounce'. For that
group, we are definitely talking about changing their behavior. On the
average I am against such efforts, because they almost always fail, especially
after so much time using the previous term.
However a) there are other constituencies that find the term problematic --
which is what prompted my bringing the matter to this list -- and b) this
thread has done a nice job of showing why continued use of the 'bounce' is
problematic.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net