On 2005-01-08 13:23:39 -0500, Michael Kaplan wrote: > > > > How will - how *could* - "a few of the large consumer ISPs" > > > > adopting your system, or any other, prevent a small site > > > > handling its own mail in, say, San Jose, from sending an > > > > erroneous bounce to a user at a small site handling its own mail > > > > in, say, Ottawa? > > > > > > I was unclear. What I meant was that it would be a simple matter for > > > and email provider to recognize a bounce sent via my system. > > > > And for the gazillion of similar schemes, too? The examples on your web > > site don't look like standard DSNs (you don't even say if the "bounces" > > are sent with an empty envelope from or with <Autoresponder at domain.com> > > as the mail headers suggest), they look like free form text. Currently > > everybody implementing your scheme is very likely to generate different > > bounce messages - and from experience with handling bogus "a mail you > > sent was blocked because of a virus" messages I can tell you that they > > are not easy to recognize. > > > > I did not specify it on my website, but I envision that the bounces would > have somekind of standard tag that would be used to identify it as a bounce. Why not use the "standard tag" which exists at least since RFC 821 (August 1982!), the empty reverse-path (MAIL FROM: <>)? > > > The email provider could then check to see if the recipient had > > > previously sent out an email to the supposed source of the bounce. If > > > the recipient had not sent out this earlier email then the bounce that > > > is coming in must obviously be an erroneous bounce and it would then > > > be blocked. > > > > The supposed source of the bounce is <Autoresponder at domain.com>. > > Assuming you mean the failed address, how does the MTA get that? Is it > > supposed to parse the English sentence "The following message that you > > sent to Joe at domain.com was blocked ..." (and its Chinese translation)? > > Please use at least an already standardized format for DSNs (sie RFC > > 3461) if you want at least a small chance that MTAs will behave as you > > expect them to behave. > > > > You are right. Instead of saying Autoresponder at domain.com it should say > Joe at domain.com. I don't think so. The message is not from Joe, it is from the mail system. Rather, the format of the message should be parseable. Please read RFC 3461 and RFC 3462 and use this format or explain why it isn't adequate for your purposes. (That format IS in wide (though unfortunately not universal) use, and there are already systems which analyse it to verify bounces). hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer | Je höher der Norden, desto weniger wird |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | überhaupt gesprochen, also auch kein Dialekt. | | | hjp at hjp.at | Hallig Gröde ist fast gänzlich dialektfrei. __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Hannes Petersen in desd
Attachment:
pgp0zMvjQxvyg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg