Re: Bounce address

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 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.  
Niceeeeeee!

> 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.
Good, because unless you have $60 grand to fund the reprogramming of our 
system, it ain't going to happen anytime soon.

> 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.
Look Franky.

Terminologies, especially in regards to the "BOUNCE ADDRESS", whether it 
is RETURN PATH, RETURN ADDRESS, SENDER ADDRESS, etc, is always going to 
be understood by SMTP developers and operators.
When you refer to end-users or even help desk and/or management or 
marketing, Envelope Sender Address doesn't guarantee understanding as 
much as anything else.  Return Address or Sender Address is probably the 
BEST choice since it at the very least matches the real world snail mail 
concept.
But Bounce Address has always work and continue to work in the context 
of whom you are communicating with.
Furthermore and more importantly which seems to have been forgotten 
here, it is 100% independent of any other PROTOCOL, including any 
phantom ones that are spoken as if they are standards and embedded in 
our lives - they are not.
Finally, BOUNCE traditionally has a very special meaning.  It means the 
entire message was literally BOUNCED back to the sender.  The STYLE in 
which it is done has changed (i.e, DSN) but it is still a BOUNCE.
There is a BIG technical difference between BOUNCE and the idea of a 
"Non-Delivery NOTIFICATION" in which the latter does not necessarily 
have to include the original content.
So I could careless what you guys which want to do with semantics. I 
prefer the improvements in the automations of the systems. I prefer 
technical documents, not just for me, but the future that spells on the 
possibilities, and in the case of a message rejection, the idea of 
echoing back the original message vs sending just a notification should 
be want is discussed.
I hope the above hogwash taste better. :)

--
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com