>>>>> "n" == nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There is no longer any excuse for not using DSNs. If sites would >> use them (and use them correctly) we wouldn't need VERPs, which >> kill performance unnecessarily. And we wouldn't need probes to >> find bad email addresses. I disagree. DSN's report the final recipient, not necessarily the address that is in your mailing list. n> As most of us have never worked for a major ISP, and are unlikely n> to do so, perhaps someone could analyze what concerns or problems n> large ISP's may have with RFC 3464 compliance. I added some DSN processing to my bounce processor the other day. Today I'm scanning the logs from it and I see that there are a fair number of "Action: failed" but "Status: 2.0.0" coming from netscape.net (and even one from aol.com). Who in their right mind would generate such a contradictory DSN? Or am I misreading the codes and their meanings? I think it is more programmer laziness/incompetence than spite that they don't comply with the DSN RFCs (or *any* random RFC). -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497 AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/
