On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, J C Lawrence wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:20:35 -0500 Vivek Khera <khera@kcilink.com> wrote:
> I disagree. DSN's report the final recipient, not necessarily the
> address that is in your mailing list.
Quite. Many things would be far more useful if alias translations
were reported in the Received: headers. (I do it here under Exim,
which makes filtering mail from multiple sources (eg root,
webmaster, postmaster, newsmaster, listmaster, etc) far easier.
To be fair, since I mentioned Bigfoot in my response to Vivek's message,
this is also true of their service. But this misses the point.
Automated processing of failures by having to parse Received: headers is
unnecessarily complex and doesn't work all the time. Although
frequently trivial to do manually that is not a solution that scales
well.
Further, alias expansions in Received headers only works when their is
one recipient. This is true if you are using VERPS (or a moral
equivalent) or if you are only delivering to one recipient at a
receiving site. So, again, this does not scale and is a HUGE
performance lose.
In contrast, if DSNs were used automatic processing is almost trivial
once you've written the parsing code.
Jim
References:
|
|
