[RFCI-Discuss] listing of upc.cz and bigpond.com

[Alex van den Bogaerdt]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:44:08AM -0500, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> 
> 
> Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
> >>Aha. I thouhgt that the DSN should clearly say that it's abuse@ address 
> >>that
> >>is not working, not any of mailboxes the addresses is forwarded to. 
> >>Seems I was wrong (didn't this change last few years?) and any error 
> >>message
> >>is sufficient.
> >
> >Like I said, that would be a loophole.  Accept mail for 
> >'abuse at example.com',
> >forward it to 'doesnotexistandthusbounces at example.com' and get away with 
> >it...
> 
> There is no loophole. The verbiage has always existed that treats "one 
> bounce as a bounce for the whole thing" **UNLESS** the error 
> specifically states that other recipients WERE delivered.
> 
> I forget which package there was, but I remember one MTA package that 
> would say things like "Delivery failed for 1 recipient (XXX at YYY); other 
> recipients delivered successfully", or something like that.
> 
> THAT sort of thing would be "fine/unlistable" but the loophole is 
> removed in that if the sender gets a bounce, they have to assume 
> "nothing worked" unless you tell them specifically that others did get it.


Derek,

I think you will see that we agree if you look at what I wrote.

I am not saying that there _is_ a loophole, I am saying that there
_would_be_ one if the situation would be different.

thanks
Alex