On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 05:38:50PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> It's true. It's not all that new, BYU's done that forever.
Then they are equally guilty of engaging in a stupid and abusive practice.
(And, I might add, a practice that could be considered a denial-of-service
attack due to the manner in which it is implemented.)
> he's considers it abuse for what reason? I find it irritating, but
> who says how long is too long to hold mail for delivery? three days?
> A week? a month? six?
In the two decades that I've been online, it's been usual and customary
to attempt delivery for anywhere from 2 to 10 days. From time to time
(rarely) I've had mail returned outside that window, but that's usually
been due to an anomalous condition which has later been detected by
the appropriate admin and fixed. But this is moot because it is not
the topic of discussion here: this mail *has* been delivered.
> bounces are bounces... (shrug)
These are not bounces. They are not bounces because they were not generated
by the failure of an MTA to deliver mail to a recipient -- because, in fact,
the MTA *did* deliver these messages to a recipient. This is netzero
deciding to spew garbage all over the 'net instead of cleaning up
their mess in-house (by imposing disk quotas, or by deleting old mail,
or by deleting accounts which are inactive for X amount of time).