[Top] [All Lists]

Re: nullmx

2008-04-01 10:09:53

ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

I'm afraid I don't have a choice. The requirements you appear to be advocating
are unjustified and unworkable in practice. If you're thinking about proposing
a language change saying that all systems engaged in SMTP client activities
MUST or even SHOULD also have an acessible server to accept problem reports,
that's simply not going to happen.


The point is well stated, but this doesn't jive with the requirement that MAIL FROM must be a valid acceptable address.

In others words, in an anonymous transaction (not authenticated, no info nor history on the domain), the receiver has no real substantiated clue that the client has no INBOUND mail box for notifications or feedback.

It really has nothing to do with the scale of the system. Small or large, they are all viewed the same to the outside world.

In my view, it would be really stupid for legitimate systems NOT to have a valid return path mail box handy and ready to accept feedback regardless if its read, not read and/or ignored, included always accepted, relayed or dropped. The address was accepted is the key point because it s standard requirement the return path be valid.

In lieu of this standard return path expectation, this type of behavior can and is used for automated black listing, e.g., failed bounces are automatically black listed.


Hector Santos, CTO

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>