Marc Sherman wrote: > Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>> "Bounces should only be sent if the receiver knows they'll be "usefully
>> delivered." This is code for: Don't sent bounces when your system
>> rejects spam or virus traffic, or you'll become an Internet pariah."
>>
>> That sounds nice in theory. But how can you ever in a sane manner
>> determine with reasonable certainty a bounce will be usefully delivered?
>> If you try to make this work it makes it also more likely legitimate
>> bounces will not be sent out. Which in turns conflicts with:
>>
>> "Silently discarding messages is not prohibited, but it is strongly
>> discouraged."
>>
>> Or am I missing something totally obvious?
>
> Yes. It means, "reject spam at SMTP time, not by accepting and bouncing.
> Only accept messages at SMTP time that you believe you can successfully
> deliver."
Hmm, yes, but that's like before, an interpretation on how you think the
RFC means.
Honestly I think this RFC still has too much MAY or SHOULD and not
enough MUST. This will lead to problems like before.
