What information do you gain from a successfull delivery? You
don't know if anybody will read it. It could have gotten
caught in a mail filter. Somebody could have messed up their
email client.
Failed messages should silently disappear. If you need to check
the spelling off the email address then a directory service
should be used.
People know when people don't email messages.
Dirk
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 08:26:32PM -0800, Racer X wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dirk Harms-Merbitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thu 2 Mar 2000 16:34
> Subject: Re: SMTP in distributed DOS
>
> > Neither bouncing messages nor return receipts make sense for
> > ordinary messages. And for registered messages one needs
> > authentication and encryption anyway.
>
> Bounces don't make sense? What other mechanism do you propose for
> signaling a failed delivery?
>
> [DOS rant deleted]
>
> As Russ said, there are far more effective and less traceable DOS
> attacks than this. Even legitimate email could be used as a "DOS
> attack"; what can we do to stop that? The truth is we don't worry about
> it. The value of legitimate email is much, much higher than the
> (comparatively minor) burden of receiving a bunch of crap.
>
> > Somebody is going to write a program that does something like
> > this. We might as well turn bounces off now before that happens.
>
> I'd hazard a guess that you'd be violating some RFC. Even if you
> weren't, what should happen to failed messages? They just get sent to
> the bit bucket and disappear?
>
> > I don't think that it is the mail server's place to divulge
> > which addresses are valid and which are not.
>
> Perhaps you should have a live postmaster read all bounces then before
> returning to sender.
>
> shag
> =====
> Judd Bourgeois | CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170
> Software Architect | 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065
>
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
>
>
>
