Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Jo Rhett writes:
On Mar 24, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I still don't get what you mean by "properly deal with DSNs". Are you saying that an MTA should never return a DSN? It should either reject the mail during the incoming SMTP transaction or forever hold its piece?
Yes. And not just me, but a dozen different blacklists.
Unfortunately this attitude does seem to be catching hold. I was told recently that a secondary MX would have to stop functioning as such because his ISP insists that he have an up to the second list of all valid mailboxes at my site; he's not allowed to relay undeliverable mail to me *ever*.
So much for the whole concept of a store-and-forward mail system. :-(
Well, it does simplify the MTA's job. Instead of all that queueing and retrying and such, you just have during SMTP (hold on a minute while I attempt to deliver this to the next hop and return that result to you)*N, a system that doesn't seem to scale well. Either that or you just forget the concept that the originator of a message can ever be informed of a delivery problem.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan