David Nicol wrote:
On 4/18/07, Mark Farver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Johan Almqvist wrote:
>
> Isn't a bounce just a message where the sender is <>?
>
I believe its supposed to be per the RFC but I have several examples in
my inbox that don't adhere to that. The guilty party appears to be
Exchange. The subject is "Delivery Status Notification (Failure)"
I'd have to do a little research to find out if that is the only
exception.
it may make sense, or may be entirely naive, to establish variable
envelope return paths for sent bounce messages, to track what
would double-bounce instead of being server-rejected. What exactly
one would do with this information aside from gathering statistics
to demonstrate ones skill with statistics is not clear. Oh yeah -- create
a blacklist of addresses to not bother sending bounces to because there
isn't anyone there anyway, and save the trouble of sending a bounce that
will just get thrown out.
Agreed. But to get back to the original thread, if someone's taken the
trouble to VERP bounces, why not take the trouble on your side to bounce
them?
If they're particularily obonoxious and aren't accenpting bounces
themselves, you can always get them with badmailfrom (because MAIL FROM
is no longer <>) or probably rfc-ignorant.org
-Johan
