Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 22:39 +0800, W B Hacker wrote:
>> Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
>>> I'm explaining that you can not reject bounces
>>> to multiple recipients *in general*.
>> I don't see why not.
>>
>> MLM's having been covered,
>
> yes, that was my example.
>
>> how often does your server transmit the same message
>> with an envelope-from or sender that lists *multiple* local addresses as the source?
>
> source routing is a SHOULD NOT in RFC 2821, so this is not generally
> possible.
QED.
>
>> So where would a *legitimate* bounce *get* the 'extra' senders to turn into
>> multiple recipients on the bounce going back to you?
>
> let me try with an example going into more detail:
>
> edgar@??? sends e-mail to discuss@???. this is a list
> run the old-skool way, in aliases it looks like:
>
> discuss: :include:/etc/lists/discuss
> discuss-request: alice@???, bob@???
> owner-discuss: discuss-request
>
> when two.example receives the message, it rewrites the envelope header
> to be owner-discuss@???. one of the members of the list is
> charlie@???. unfortunately, e-mail to charlie bounces, so
> two.example will send a bounce to the sender, which is now
> owner-discuss. this expands to alice and bob, and is delivered as a
> single bounce to those two recipients from two.example to three.example.
>
Kjetl,
OK 'example' it is. But I think we two are going 'round in increasingly
off-topic circles by now.
'Old school' as you put it, alias expansion - MLM or other - can indeed screw
several breeds of pooch - rewriting or not.
But this need not be a dominant factor w/r choosing how best to handle
multiple-recipient bounces.
Better to fix the problematic aliasing than forego a useful problem-solver.
Anyway - the thread started with DNS list lookup defer questions, so I'm going
away now.....
Best,
Bill
