Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

On 29 Jun 2016, at 11:45, Chip wrote: I will read up on it. Thank you for the link. Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer. True, unless you accept Michael Wise's generous functional definition. I'm on the fence there, as I've held job titles calling me an engineer but

Re: (Off-topic: who's on the list) was: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

> On 6/29/16 3:13 PM, Michael J Wise wrote: > >>> On 6/29/16 2:30 PM, Michael J Wise wrote: >>> > I will read up on it. Thank you for the link. > > Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer. In that you are mistaken. Almost everyone who subscribes to

Re: (Off-topic: who's on the list) was: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: > > AND NOW I'M CURIOUS... What kinds of backgrounds and roles do people here > have? Is managing a postfix installation part of your official duties, or > something that you've fallen into? CS degree from

Re: (Off-topic: who's on the list) was: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

On 6/29/16 3:13 PM, Michael J Wise wrote: On 6/29/16 2:30 PM, Michael J Wise wrote: I will read up on it. Thank you for the link. Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer. In that you are mistaken. Almost everyone who subscribes to this mailing-list is an engineer.

Re: (Off-topic: who's on the list) was: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

> On 6/29/16 2:30 PM, Michael J Wise wrote: > >>> I will read up on it. Thank you for the link. >>> >>> Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer. >> In that you are mistaken. >> >> Almost everyone who subscribes to this mailing-list is an engineer. >> Please re-read that line.

(Off-topic: who's on the list) was: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

On 6/29/16 2:30 PM, Michael J Wise wrote: I will read up on it. Thank you for the link. Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer. In that you are mistaken. Almost everyone who subscribes to this mailing-list is an engineer. Please re-read that line. This mailing list is

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

> I will read up on it. Thank you for the link. > > Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer. In that you are mistaken. Almost everyone who subscribes to this mailing-list is an engineer. Please re-read that line. This mailing list is for people who need to configure or make

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

I will read up on it. Thank you for the link. Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer. So it would have been easier to understand if the response had been along the lines of: "envelope-from" instead of just FROM since there are a number of Froms in the source code.

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

On 29/06/16 17:02, Chip wrote: > If Return-path is added by receiving MTA, as you say, below, and that it > contains the MAIL FROM, then why do I see the following in source code > of received message in which return-path does not match From? Could I respectfully suggest that you read up on the

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

Le 29/06/2016 17:02, Chip a écrit : If Return-path is added by receiving MTA, as you say, below, and that it contains the MAIL FROM, then why do I see the following in source code of received message in which return-path does not match From? X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2:

Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

If Return-path is added by receiving MTA, as you say, below, and that it contains the MAIL FROM, then why do I see the following in source code of received message in which return-path does not match From? X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: X-Mozilla-Keys: Return-path:

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

Chip wrote: > My mistake NOT "bounces-to" rather "return-path" Return-path is a header added by the receiving MTA (usually on final delivery) that contains the envelope sender (MAIL FROM) used by the sending system. > as in the following > snippet of campaign emails from Home Depot, Martha

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

On 6/28/16 2:01 PM, Chip wrote: > My mistake NOT "bounces-to" rather "return-path" This is not a subtle difference. The Return-Path header gets added (or replaced, in the case it is already there) by the receiving MTA with the MAIL FROM address. It is placed there only for convenience of the

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

My mistake NOT "bounces-to" rather "return-path" as in the following snippet of campaign emails from Home Depot, Martha Stewart and Sears: From - Mon Jun 20 08:43:03 2016 X-Account-Key: account15 X-UIDL: UID1962-1324328699 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: X-Mozilla-Keys:

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

> On 28 Jun 2016, at 20:26, Jeffs Chips wrote: > > I'm just saying that ALL email campaign services allow and indeed suggest > users to identity a specific sole purpose email account in which to receive > bounces to eliminate spam and which almost all email campaigners

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

I don't dispute any of what happens just saying that a company out there that advertises as their mission to eliminate spam and whom, they advertise, has access to 30 million MX records is sending bounces to the reply to or envelope sender whereas I'm just saying that ALL email campaign services

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

> On 28 Jun 2016, at 19:28, Chip wrote: > > Okay maybe it's not in RFC's but I would it would be at least a > recommendation that bounces can be routed back to bounces-to rather than > reply-to. After all, why have the field at all if it's not used properly. No RFC

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

Mail-server refusals (as in NOQUEUE) are generated before the email body is received - and will also be sent to the envelope sender. On 28/06/16 18:51, Noel Jones wrote: > On 6/28/2016 12:12 PM, Chip wrote: >> Meaning there are no standards for the way >> emailers should respond to bounces? >

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

Bounces go to the envelope sender, the address used in the SMTP MAIL FROM command. Not reply-to, nor bounces-to, nor any other address listed in a header. To control where bounces are returned, set the envelope sender. -- Noel Jones On 6/28/2016 1:28 PM, Chip wrote: > In standard email

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

In standard email campaign software like phplist, constantcontact, mailchimp all of those popular email campaign software many of which use Exim and are used literally by millions of email campaigners, the bounces-to is where bounces are expected to be returned so that they can be effectively

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

On 6/28/2016 12:12 PM, Chip wrote: > Meaning there are no standards for the way > emailers should respond to bounces? bounces always go to the envelope sender, regardless of any unrelated junk in the headers.

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

Chip: > Okay I guess it does. Meaning there are no standards for the way > emailers should respond to bounces? According to RFC 5321, the definition of the Internet email protocol, an undeliverable email message is returned to its MAIL FROM address, and that return message is sent with the null

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

Okay I guess it does. Meaning there are no standards for the way emailers should respond to bounces? On 06/28/2016 12:54 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: Chip: I know this question is not specifically germane to Postfix but everyone on this list has extensive experience with bouncing policies. If a

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

Chip: > I know this question is not specifically germane to Postfix but everyone > on this list has extensive experience with bouncing policies. > > If a receiver of campaign emails (that promotes itself as an email > security service) sends bounces to "reply-to" rather than "bounces-to" > as

Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

I know this question is not specifically germane to Postfix but everyone on this list has extensive experience with bouncing policies. If a receiver of campaign emails (that promotes itself as an email security service) sends bounces to "reply-to" rather than "bounces-to" as a policy despite