At 10:50 AM 2003-03-02 -0600, email@example.com wrote:
> > I've got just one. Do RFC3464 right!
> > 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.
> > There is something bad to say about every major ISP on the issue of
> > RFC3464 compliance.
>And that doesn't suggest problems with RFC 3464 to you?
>As most of us have never worked for a major ISP, and are unlikely to
>do so, perhaps someone could analyze what concerns or problems large ISP's
>may have with RFC 3464 compliance.
>I really doubt they're all being non-compliant just out of spite.
At one point, the author of Postfix estimated that DSN would more than
double the size of Postfix. The problem may actually be worse than the
SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel.
spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally
to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it
can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc. But if it is not all three of
Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term
plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and
spammers thrive on confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like
theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer?
Nick Simicich - firstname.lastname@example.org - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html
Stop by and light up the world!