On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Cord Beermann wrote: > if we send out a notification for each of those, [...]
No, no, no. Obviously, I have not explained myself well enough. Sorry for that. I have never, ever, proposed that we send email notifications of any kind, that would be crazy for a lot of reasons, and we absolutely agree on that. These days, the only sensible way, if any, to "inform" a user that his email has not been accepted is by giving a SMTP REJECT to the incoming SMTP connection, and we would not be sending any email by doing that. If the email is sent by a true SMTP server, it would be the real SMTP server who notifies the user, *not* us, and we would *not* be creating any backscatter by doing that. That's the only feedback I was talking about: reject some of the messages at SMTP time, when we are still in time to do so and it may be done safely. At least those emails would be notified (by their remote SMTP servers, if they are legitimate, not by us), that their email was not accepted. I'm very sorry that you got the idea that I was proposing notifying the users directly by sending additional email, that has *never* been the case. BTW, I definitely don't want to kill email, but I also hope you don't want either. The death of email is already happening by devnulling everything which looks like spam (including legitimate messages) instead of trying to reject as much spam as it is reasonable at the SMTP level. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
