MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> The receiver might read it as "sender doesn't care whether the >> mail gets delivered". > > While there might be some domains that take that stance I wouldn't > expect "mainstream domains" to take that stance. I expect financial > institutions to be somewhat early adopters and any ISP/mailbox provider > that decides discardable means don't bother trying to deliver the mail > should be prepared to beef up their Customer Service staff to handle > complaints.
And beef up their legal retainers as well. > There is a significant difference between sendedr saying "I recognize > that a fraction of a percent of legitimate mail might not get delivered > if my assertion is followed" and "sender doesn't care whether the mail > gets delivered". +1. I have less of an issue with the DISCARDABLE policy. It is the lack of one or having the other policies with no handling semantics that will very interesting. Same EMAIL abuse? Two different policies? I see clear legal claims neglect against high-value domains who don't use DISCARDABLE. In other words, if a receiver sees a damaging goods and continues to pass on the damaged goods because ASAP says so, and there is user harm, someone is going to be responsible. This whole thing is ridden with fleas and the on-going administrator "myth" that there is no product liability risk with DISCARDING of MAIL, especially after issuing a 250 Acceptance. It smacks against the 1986 US EPCA provisions for satisfying "User Expectations." The dynamic SMTP level reject satisfy this instant notification. Accepting and discarding runs a HUGE risk. So people better get this right. -- Sincerely Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
