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?
On Behalf Of John Levine
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:51 PM
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.