At 02:26 PM 2/28/2005 -0500, you wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, David MacQuigg wrote:
> Again, a reputable Forwarder will find Bounces not an annoyance, but a
> valuable statistical sample of the particular type of spam that is most
Yes, that is what DSN is for. So tell me again why we need "Bounces"?
In the example I gave the DSN would go to the Return-Path ( amazon.com
). A Bounce ( spam reject ) would go to the previous Forwarder ( pobox.com
). The address for a DSN is the Return-Path as it should be. Even if
amazon.com is a forged path, sending them a DSN does no harm. The best
address for a Bounce
is the previous Forwarder. We cannot rely on any "chain-of-trust" back to
the Sender. We cannot send it to the Return-Path because that is most
likely forged. The key difference is in the *routing* of the two types of
messages.
To summarize, we need to allow Bounces because they will happen anyway. and
because they have a great value to Recipients and to Forwarders who might
want to improve their blocking and filtering. The problems of the past can
be avoided if we provide a good alternative. The only change we need is to
send Bounces to a different address than is currently used for DSNs.
We probably should call these "Rejects", but there may be some confusion
with SMTP Rejects.
-- Dave
************************************************************* *
* David MacQuigg, PhD * email: dmq'at'gci-net.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