On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:32 , Nick Simicich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > At 10:50 AM 2003-03-02 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I've got just one. Do RFC3464 right! > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > There is something bad to say about every major ISP on the issue of > > > RFC3464 compliance. > > > >And that doesn't suggest problems with RFC 3464 to you? > > > >As most of us have never worked for a major ISP, and are unlikely to > >do so, perhaps someone could analyze what concerns or problems large ISP's > >may have with RFC 3464 compliance. > > > >I really doubt they're all being non-compliant just out of spite. > > At one point, the author of Postfix estimated that DSN would more than > double the size of Postfix. The problem may actually be worse than the > disease. > The exim author has said similar things (more on the complexity front rather than size). I don't speak for him tho'
-- Alan Thew [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computing Services,University of Liverpool Fax: +44 151 794-4442
