[Top] [All Lists]

RE: NDNs considered harmful

2010-08-12 09:53:18

True statement, but that means the senders of the other 5% are now left
in the dark as to what happened to their mail.
Is there a proposed solution to that?

Talking out of my hat here, it is my impression that spam is much more likely to be sent to bogus addresses than legit mail is, so however the spam fraction of your mailstream, the spam fraction of your bounces is likely to be even higher.

On my tiny mail system, most but not quite all of the bounces can be handled as rejections at SMTP time. The ones I can't are generally deliveries to scripts where the script decides whether it can accept the mail. When those say nope, can't deliver that, when is it worth generating a bounce?


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org 
On Behalf Of John Levine
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:51 PM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: NDNs considered harmful

I note, again fwiw, that I've been trying to get various advocates
for a ban (or near-ban) on NDNs to write that separate document and
propose a specific model at regular intervals since well before
2821 was completed.

I'm new to that particular topic.  Can you explain its motivation or
point me to a discussion thread that lays it out so I can get some

Nothing surprising -- on today's Internet where 95% of mail is spam
and essentially all the spam has forged return addresses, no matter
how careful you are, most of your NDNs will be blowback to people who
didn't send the mail.

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