Re: How getmail deals with delivery errors and with bounce e-mails

On 03-11-2020 16:33, R. Diez wrote:
> 
>> [...]
>> getmail DOES NOT generate bounce messages, nor should it because the
>> responsibility for bouncing a message has already been handled by the
>> upstream MTA/MDA pair that "own" the destination mailbox.
> 
> First of all, thanks for your help.
> 
> I would like to understand why "the responsibility for bouncing" has
> already been handled and it is too late to do it later.

:-)


> I am hoping that this information may not only help me, but other people
> too.

Yes, here at this end is it clear that rdiez has good intentions.
And for "other people" is good faith assumed.

>> The trouble with your approach is that the final MTA/MDA don't know
>> enough to bounce
>> a message because you're using a catch-all mailbox.
> 
> What information is missing?

The difference in tasks/duty/responsibility of MTA and MDA


> Even when using a multidrop or catch-all
> mailbox, we have the envelope recipient in the X-Original-To header (or
> similar header, depending on the server).
> 
> I am not sure about the envelope sender. The e-mails I am looking at
> have no "Sender" header. We could use header "Return-Path" anyway. The
> getmail configuration can use %(sender) for that.
> 
> 
>> But since they're designated as responsible for the domain, they've
>> already acknowledged delivery.
>> You can't later on turn around and say "oh, that mailbox really
>> doesn't exist, sorry..."
>> because you're seeking to remain only partially connected to the 'net.
> 
> OK, but why not? What would exactly be the problem? After all, there are
> autoresponders like "on vacation" or "e-mails to this address will not
> be read" already.
> 
> 
>> The proper approach for a partially connected environment is to
>> maintain a 1-1 correspondence between the mailboxes on
>> the internal server and the ISP's server so that the ISP can
>> intelligently bounce non-deliverable messages.
> 
> Yes, but I am still resisting. 8-)

Sure
However do know that ignorance is involved    8^)



Regards
Geert Stappers