"Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> John R. Levine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>> My point is that it is the senders responsibility to generate a
>> return path. Passing that responsibility to the server isn't a good
>
>You are passing the responsibility of delivering the entire message to the
>same exact server. If you think that the server is good enough to accept
>responsibility for delivering the message in the first place, chances that
>it's also good enough to properly bounce it.
No. You don't give a message to remote server because you think it'll
treat it right; you do it because you have to. Considering the
suprisingly large number of MTA's that don't even send bounces to the
return path, it seems likely that trusting random remote systems to do
the right thing will fail pretty often.
-Dave
