> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Alan DeKok
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 6:22 PM
> To: MXCOMP
> Subject: Re: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]
>
>
>
> David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Generally, what isn't delivered should be rejected by the first
> > recipient it's offered to. It never leaves the spammer's machine and
> > there's no bounce.
>
> As has been pointed out repeatedly, this won't work in the existing
> SMTP system, due to certain design and implementation decisions.
>
> Whether this means the current design is incorrect, or your idea is
> incorrect is an argument which will never end.
>
> For related questions, what happens when I forward email manually,
> and it bounces back to me? Is it legal for me to delete it, or should
> I in turn bounce it to the originator who sent it to me? How does
> this scenario differ from the automated forwarding process? Is it
> legal, ever, for a part of the email system to discard a message? If
> so, why? If not, why not?
>
> > This is why you should always have MX backups which are capable of
> > rejecting mail to unknown users at the domain, for example.
>
> Ideally, yes. This can be difficult to do in practice.
Indeed, near impossible: There are more then just "invalid recipient" as rejection reason. Consider
the popular "mailbox full" error.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
[email protected]
Fax: (416) 441-9085
>
> Alan DeKok.
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.