At 12:01 PM 2/23/2005 -0500, you wrote:
...... Original Message .......
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:28:11 -0700 David MacQuigg wrote:
>At 09:55 PM 2/22/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>Are we in agreement that bounces may come *after* a forwarder's SMTP
session is closed? To repeat my earlier statement: A bounce might come as
late as several hours, when the recipient hits a "Reject as Spam" button.
That reject should be treated as a "bounce" and follow authenticated
addresses all the way back to its source.
No. Not generally. The only time you can bounce without causing
backscatter is if SPF passed.
So how should a forwarder handle a bounce that comes from his receiver
*after* the session with his sender is closed?
I agree an SPF check *during* the session is necessary, but that doesn't
mean the bounce can't come later.
-- Dave
************************************************************* *
* David MacQuigg, PhD * email: dmq(_at_)gain(_dot_)com * *
* IC Design Engineer * phone: USA 520-721-4583 * * *
* Analog Design Methodologies * * *
* * 9320 East Mikelyn Lane * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C. * Tucson, Arizona 85710 *
************************************************************* *
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com