[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Queued Mail or Unreturnable Mail?

2008-05-05 06:43:32

On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:51:30 +0200, Alessandro Vesely 
Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
To be sure, it sounds like the right thing to do.  As yet, though, 
there's no justification in doing it other than that queue clogging 
will often result if you don't.  Is it *semantically* correct to reject 
mail just because bounces for the sender are undeliverable?

That question seems ill-conditioned to me. It is semantically correct to 
mail because the *recipient* is undeliverable.

The question is written as intended, but we appear to be in agreement.

I still want to know why sender verification is a good idea, though.  If 
the recipient validation is sufficient to reduce backscatter and queue 
cloggage, why *are* we insisting upon a semantic disapproval of invalid 
sender addresses?  What kind of high horse are we on, to insist that even 
under normal mail delivery circumstances, sender addresses of 
less-than-perfect form may not be used?  Certainly, to me, this looks like 
an anti-spam tool which, while tempting to the eye of the postmaster 
wishing to reduce tempfailing blowback, is already seeing diminished 
usefullness and which is known to break legitimate mail.


Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail<at>sabahattin<dash>gucukoglu<dot>com>
Address harvesters, snag this: feedme(_at_)yamta(_dot_)org
Phone: +44 20 88008915
Mobile: +44 7986 053399