Re: Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft

On Apr 15, 2011, at 10:20 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:

> On 15/Apr/11 14:50, Keith Moore wrote:
>> I'm strongly opposed to MTAs "fixing" malformed messages (other than
>> submission servers fixing a small number of known problems caused by
>> broken mail clients).
> 
> +1, standardizing fixes implies a standard status for malformed messages.
> 
>> If an MTA does anything at all when it thinks that a message is
>> malformed, it should be to bounce it _exactly as it received it
>> originally_.
> 
> Bouncing is not quite practical.  Rejecting is more viable, but it has
> to be coordinated with any backup MX.

Bouncing is absolutely what should happen if the message is merely malformed.  Otherwise, the sender has no idea that his message didn't arrive (or why), and nothing will ever be done to fix the problem.

Keith