>> How does this impact newsletters and the like that quite often use a >> non-existent bounce address as the From?
>What newsletters do that? I see them all of the time. Also, how about autoresponding support systems that tell you not to respond to the email. Do you think that every one of those systems has an email address set up for the From address? I don't think so. >I never, ever send a newsletter from a nonexistent bounce (envelope >sender) address. Quite the opposite. How do you clean your lists if >you don't have a drop box to scan? Even if you don't bother cleaning, >is there some reason to not at least *devnull* bounces, not reject >them? I never said I did. I'm just saying that I've seen some who do send from nonexistent addresses. Not a good policy, and pretty silly when you think of newsletters as a marketing vehicle, but I can't control what everyone else does. As for cleaning the lists, the newsletters and auto-responding support systems that send from a nonexistent address either have other means of cleaing their lists... like unsub links... or, as in the case with autoresponding support systems, they don't need to. >> It seems that this would require the newsletter sender to make sure >> the bounce address exists >Why shouldn't it? VERP, for example, exists to make list bounce >addresses more useful, _not_ to eliminate them. As another benefit, >VERP also allows for end-user-created addresses (as in IMail, where -- >provided mailbox subaddressing is honored at the MX -- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] can send from [EMAIL PROTECTED]). >> even if it does nothing but toss any email sent to it. >i.e., even if it just stops double-bounces. Point taken. >> However, if exceptions were made to allow some addresses not to be >> verified, by a standard name like bounce@, DNS policy that states a >> particular email address does not receive email (which just shifts >> the verification load from the mail server to the DNS server), etc., >> then that would seem to greatly reduce the effectiveness of SAV. >I really don't agree with your premise here at all. I don't know what >circumstances would have led you to routinely send mail blasts with >nonexistent senders. I never said I did. That's jumping to conclusions. Stopping the double bounce answers the need to make sure the address exists, so the exception discussion is moot. You seem a bit irritated, Sandy... eating those soggy extra yellow cornflakes again? <g> Darin. To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
