[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt

2008-04-23 15:25:32

At 03:19 -0400 on 04/19/2008, Hector Santos wrote about Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt:

Note, I am not questioning that an explicit MX requirement method is not a valid consideration. I am questioning to what purpose?

Just consider the many transactions with addresses such as:

   no-reply @

that many feedbacks system use today, including bad guys and the bad/good direct marketing people.

What is the envelope address for these messages? So long as it exists and will accept delivery failure Email, the fact that the FROM address is SEND-ONLY (but in a valid domain that will respond by sending a "NO SUCH USER" error message to any recipient that tries to reply [or send] to such an address) is a non issue that is self correcting (you spank the user who tries to send to the address).

Well, an explicit MX does not resolve this problem of a response address not being reachable.

You said that "" is a valid domain so attempts to send to the no-reply address will get to the SMTP server supporting which will then send a "No Such User" reply (which in my book qualifies as reachable since the message to no-reply WAS delivered to the SMTP Server (but then rejected).