> I still don't know that they do,
Obviously. But I'm not asking you to admit that VERPs are reliable.
The problem remains: You asserted that the reliability of VERPs depends
on ``all MTA's and MUA's'' producing ``decipherable bounce messages.''
That is a false assertion, made in reckless disregard of the truth. By
presenting your incorrect speculations as if they were facts, you have
deceived some readers. You owe them a retraction.
Furthermore, your continued dishonesty has now offended me sufficiently
that I demand a public apology.
> So, a claim that it works reliably is not proven and probably CANNOT BE
Theoretically, the reliability of VERPs is guaranteed by RFC 821. As a
practical matter, I have seen several thousand incoming bounce messages
for a variety of mailing lists using VERP exploders; there were all
sorts of amazingly stupid bounce messages, but the subscription address
was correctly identified in every case.
Someday, when you learn what VERPs are, you will see why they are so
reliable. In the meantime, it is unacceptable for you to pretend that
you know what you're talking about.
Put an end to unauthorized mail relaying. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html