On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, David MacQuigg wrote:
I haven't caught the part where you tell me why we need another thing
like a DSN that is not a DSN? Why not use a DSN?
The DSN goes to the Return-Path, which may be forged. That is not a
problem with most DSNs, but it is a serious problem with Bounces due to
spam. Until now, these Bounces have been sent to the Return-Path, but that
practice is now becoming a problem.
So tell me again why we need those "Bounces"? As far as I can see, the
problem is sending a "Bounce" instead of a DSN. A DSN for a forged
message is trivially filtered before SMTP DATA, and aside from using a little
bandwidth, doesn't bother anyone. The "Bounces", as you note, are a HUGE pain.
So the solution is to stop sending those stupid "Bounces" and send
DSNs like you're supposed to for delivery problems.
Such practice has never been standardized, and in fact has been vigorously
opposed by many organizations (like SpamCop). Therefore we have no risk of
Did you stop to wonder why SpamCop and I would oppose sending "Bounces" ?
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.