[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Defaulting to no mail

2008-03-30 07:34:15

John Levine writes:
As other people have pointed out, a no-mail default is far more robust than the current default, since a fair number of non-mail hosts turn out to be running some sort of default SMTP server which will swallow and lose mail. Or even if they aren't running an SMTP server, it can take a week for the message to time out and bounce. It'd be much better for such messages to fail immediately so the sender will notice and can do something about it.

There is another argument: A fair amount of software constructs email addresses, most notably

    Sender: something(_at_)hostname


   MAIL FROM:<something(_at_)hostname>

The best I can say for these addresses is that they're syntactically valid. It would be a great joy to me if all the muckware would stop assuming that blah(_at_)hostname is a deliverable email address.