On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Dean Anderson wrote in reply to Doug Royer:
> > No. On once case your get a "no such host" error and never send the
> > email in the first place and the other case gets a bounce. Not the same
> > thing.
>
> You don't seem to understand how mail works. In both cases you get a
> bounce. In neither case is a message sent.
To correct you on matters emailish once again; a SMTP transaction can be
rejected _after_ the DATA (the complete message) has been completed.
The fact that Entity Foo _currently_ rejects the SMTP transaction before
the data statement is not a guarantee that Entity Foo will _always_ reject
the SMTP transaction before the data statement.
( See 4.2.5 of RFC2821 and 4.1.1 (&4.3) of RFC821 )
This is what some people are afraid of; that Entity Foo _does_ have the
_ability_ to intercept the complete email message, even though Entity Foo
does not appear to use it. For Doug's application, the fact that Entity
Foo (being a 3rd party) does have this ability is enough to dictate
careful reconsideration of its methodology.
> > I manage a site that sends mortgage documents. It NEEDS to be sure that
> > the destination is valid before sending confidential information.
>
> This isn't broken. You won't send any messages because you won't get to
> the "data" command. You will get an SMTP error code. The message is never
> delivered to Verisign.
s/never/currently not/ .
> Those claiming otherwise are simply lying, and using fear mongering
> techniques, as you are below.
Actually, those claiming otherwise seem to have read and understood
various references on how email works.
--
Bruce Campbell I speak for myself.
