Apologies if this comes through twice - it doesn't look like the first one made it (and I got no bounce message :) ).
On 10/13/2014 8:40 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/13/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote: >>> Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> writes: >>> >>>> The mail is accepted. What the recipient does with the mail after that >>>> is outside the scope of an RFC. There is no obligation on the recipient >>>> to inform the sender that he has ripped up the mail and junked it. >>> When the MTA delivers the mail it accepted correctly, then there is no >>> problem. What whoever receives the mail does with it is an entirely >>> different question. >>> >>> >> Incorrect. All the MTA does is receive the mail. It is then free to >> queue it up to the user, send it to a SPAM folder or delete it. None of >> these options is covered by the RFCs. >> > > Well, yes and no. Reporting "message accepted for delivery" as a status > code, then silently dropping it, or otherwise sending inaccurate status > codes, is kind of questionable. > > And... these things ARE covered, at least in part, by RFCs" > > RFC5321 (latest SMTP spec), Section 6.2. (Unwanted, Unsolicited, and > "Attack" Messages) makes for interesting reading. > > For example: > "As discussed in Section 7.8 and Section 7.9 below, dropping mail > without notification of the sender is permitted in practice. However, it > is extremely dangerous and violates a long tradition and community > expectations that mail is either delivered or returned. If silent > message-dropping is misused, it could easily undermine confidence in the > reliability of the Internet's mail systems. So silent dropping of > messages should be considered only in those cases where there is very > high confidence that the messages are seriously fraudulent or otherwise > inappropriate." > > Miles Fidelman > Not a grey area at all. "...dropping mail > without notification of the sender is permitted...". As for the "...long tradition and community expectations..." - that's nice, but according to some estimates, spammers now account for over 90% of the email traffic on the internet. To bounce all of those invalid addresses not only would further increase the amount of junk on the internet, but by not replying, servers tell the spammers what are valid email addresses. Finally, as for "...undermine confidence in the reliability of the Internet's mail systems..." - it hasn't been reliable since spammers virtually took over the email. And even when emails were rejected, it still was no indication the recipient got the message. There is, and never has been a reliable end-to-end verification of email messages. BTW - by definition, any messages to any of the domains I manage without a valid email address are "seriously fraudulent or otherwise inappropriate". For instance, I never got your message via email. I only got it because I watch the list via usenet, also - even though I am subscribed. But AT&T email never has been all that reliable, and it's getting worse. That's why this and usenet return address are the only places I use it. And I'm considering dropping it for one of my gmail accounts. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543c820a.5060...@attglobal.net
