Hector Santos wrote:
My only opposition to using exclusively the NDN terminology
(because it better matches Moore's document), is the possible
notion that Moore's RFC might be interpreted to mean it is
now an SMTP requirement which is it not.
Sorry, Hector, I think that's hogwash. RFC 2821, I-D.2821bis,
UTF8SMTP, and Dave's I-D already have NORMATIVE references to
some DSN RFCs (if that's what you dub as "Moore's RFC"). It's
actually a SHOULD in RFC 2821 and I-D.2821bis.
Using a term like "envelope sender address" won't twist this
SHOULD into a MUST, and avoiding this term won't twist it into
a MAY.
Using the term "envelope sender address" in an I-D that anyway
_normatively_ references one of the RFCs where it's defined is
perfectly okay, certainly better than any highly controversial
"bounce address" desinformation.
But maybe what you're talking about is the term "non-delivery
notice" (NDN). You find that already in STD 10 (RFC 821),
later RFC 2821 changed it to "non-delivery report" (NDR), so
that's no prejudice wrt the DSN RFCs.
JFTR, BATV is still an I-D, the DSN RFCs are draft standards.
Frank