[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Queued Mail or Unreturnable Mail?

2008-05-05 10:54:59

Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:51:30 +0200, Alessandro Vesely <vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it> wrote:

That question seems ill-conditioned to me. It is semantically correct
>> to reject 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?

Huh?  To address the junk that does address the user's inbox?


Hector Santos, CTO