-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I suppose that is as fair an approach as any.
Doubly so if you send a DSN with information as
to the error that caused the problem, otherwise a reject
is just as informative.
I don't see any reference to DSN's in your original
message though.
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2005, Daniel Taylor wrote:
I may be overly optimistic in how people will respond
to such things, but if they don't get rejects, how will
they know there is an error in their record?
Is the SPF fairy going to pay them a visit and magically fix it for them?
No, but the DSN fairy has been getting good results for me. As a bonus,
if the sending doesn't accept DSNs, then I reject the message.
- --
Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtaylor(_at_)vocalabs(_dot_)com http://www.vocalabs.com/
(952)941-6580x203
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCdm628/QSptFdBtURAiL+AJ9QkXV6vMkMZYPGDR58Kq5c1kBS+ACeIMsg
fV1JbVTYCJRB9NIBCuH0JKM=
=7cRE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----