RE: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]

[<terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Alan DeKok
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 6:22 PM
> To: MXCOMP
> Subject: Re: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]
>
>
>
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Generally, what isn't delivered should be rejected by the first
> > recipient it's offered to. It never leaves the spammer's machine and
> > there's no bounce.
>
>   As has been pointed out repeatedly, this won't work in the existing
> SMTP system, due to certain design and implementation decisions.
>
>   Whether this means the current design is incorrect, or your idea is
> incorrect is an argument which will never end.
>
>   For related questions, what happens when I forward email manually,
> and it bounces back to me?  Is it legal for me to delete it, or should
> I in turn bounce it to the originator who sent it to me?  How does
> this scenario differ from the automated forwarding process?  Is it
> legal, ever, for a part of the email system to discard a message?  If
> so, why?  If not, why not?
>
> > This is why you should always have MX backups which are capable of
> > rejecting mail to unknown users at the domain, for example.
>
>   Ideally, yes.  This can be difficult to do in practice.

Indeed, near impossible: There are more then just "invalid recipient" as rejection reason.  Consider
the popular "mailbox full" error.

Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fax: (416) 441-9085



>
>   Alan DeKok.
>