Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> > > Agreed. However, if we became aware (by whatever means[1]) that you
> > >
> > > repudiated a bounce to postmaster at the RCPT stage, you might well
> > > land up in our "unreachable domains" blacklist,
> >
> > how do you rationalise your response?
>
> When I said "might well", I guess that was not a good choice of words.
> What I meant to say is that it might provoke mail admins to look more
> closely at the situation, as a result of which, if other factors
> applied, they might decide that the site was not participating
> properly in SMTP.
Is it just I, or is this argument going around in circles? :)
This is one of those 'disagreements' where there is no correct way. It is
a simple case of 'To each his own'. There are a portion of mail servers
out there that will always wind someone up with regards to a specific
policy they enforce, and it is, to a large degree useless quoting the
RFC's in any of these cases. The root reason why a lot of these
restrictions are in place are to combat problems which are created by
people who have a complete disregard of any RFC. Greg himself, (who has
been very vocal regarding this subject), well knows a certain quote
pertaining to 'RFC's do not apply'.
It is down to site policy. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone is
willing to accept a sociability risk due to some of their restrictions,
then that is their prerogative.
The only time a RFC type debate should be of consequence is when the
restrictions enforced by a mail server are not due to maintaining
useability of the mail system, but rather down to the ineptness of the
admin/operator.
(Getting prepared, ready for the responses:).
Matt
p.s: This is a light hearted opinion. I am in no way slating anyone
regarding their personal preferences.
