Franck Martin writes: > Hard Bounce: "no such mailbox/user/email address here" (SMTP > enhanced status code, like 5.1.1), usually a permanent failure > Soft Bounce: "there may be a valid mailbox/user/email address here, > but we are not accepting this email" (SMTP enhanced status code > like 5.7.1), a permanent or temporary failure
That's not the terminology we use around Mailman: a "hard bounce" is exactly a "permanent failure". I'll keep it in mind that you at least use the term differently here. Nor is the "soft bounce" as you define it useful if it is permanent (5.x.x). Even if the site admits it's a policy bounce, you have to parse the error text in hope of determining whether there's something wrong with the message (the next message might go through, even from the same author), or if the receiver doesn't like the mailing list (messages aren't going to go through period) or doesn't like the author (the next message might or might not go through, depending on the author). And usually it's useless for the purpose, so has to be passed on to the site admin for forensic analysis. And even that doesn't help with sites that deliberately don't use appropriate codes. I don't really see that (from a protocol standpoint) we're any better off than we were before the enhanced status codes for the purpose of determining whether to stop mail to or unsubscribe a bouncing address. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
