>>>>> "n" == nolan <nolan@celery.tssi.com> writes:
>> There is no longer any excuse for not using DSNs. If sites would
>> use them (and use them correctly) we wouldn't need VERPs, which
>> kill performance unnecessarily. And we wouldn't need probes to
>> find bad email addresses.
I disagree. DSN's report the final recipient, not necessarily the
address that is in your mailing list.
n> As most of us have never worked for a major ISP, and are unlikely
n> to do so, perhaps someone could analyze what concerns or problems
n> large ISP's may have with RFC 3464 compliance.
I added some DSN processing to my bounce processor the other day.
Today I'm scanning the logs from it and I see that there are a fair
number of "Action: failed" but "Status: 2.0.0" coming from
netscape.net (and even one from aol.com).
Who in their right mind would generate such a contradictory DSN? Or
am I misreading the codes and their meanings?
I think it is more programmer laziness/incompetence than spite that
they don't comply with the DSN RFCs (or *any* random RFC).
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: khera@kciLink.com Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497
AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
