Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!solomon@wisc-crys.ARPA From: solomon@wisc-crys.ARPA (Marvin Solomon) Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: smtp, errors and delivery Message-ID: <8403052307.AA04439@wisc-crys.ARPA> Date: Mon, 5-Mar-84 18:07:15 EST Article-I.D.: hou3c.370 Posted: Mon Mar 5 18:07:15 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Mar-84 07:39:27 EST Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Lines: 41 To: Header-People@mit-mc.ARPA I can't resist putting in my two bits. An important principle in mail systems is the notion of responsibility. If we want reliable mail systems, then we should design them so that throughout a message's lifetime, there is always some module responsible for it. When a server SMTP accepts a message, it is taking responsibility for that message. If for some reason it can't deliver the message to the recipient, it has the responsibility to return it to the sender. If it has reason to believe that it is being asked to accept a piece of mail that will be unreturnable, it has every right (indeed duty) to reject it. Otherwise, it may end up with no alternative but to drop the message on the floor--the very worst thing to do in any mail systems. The old BBN SMTP server (used with many Berkeley 4.1 UNIX systems) got a lot of flack (righly) for being too promiscuous in what it would accept; it would take just about anything, and figure out later what to do about it: MAIL FROM: !random@@garbage? 250 Fine and dandy RCPT TO: >you got to be kidding> 250 You betcha DATA blah blah blah . 250 Yes sir boss! I would much rather see mail bounce back to the sender if something goes wrong, than to have it flush down a black hole. If the server doesn't like the MAIL FROM address, the sender should take the rejection gracefully, and inform the sender that something is wrong. The sender (if he is a naive user) will yell at his mail system maintainer, who will see what's wrong and fix it. The idea of substituting "Postmaster" has a lot to recommend it, but if that's rejected (perhaps because it's the host name, not the local part, that's at issue), the sender shouldn't cram the mail down the receiver's throat. Null return addresses should only be used for the error messages themselves. If many (most?) SMTP servers are broken, they should be fixed, not coded around by breaking the senders as well.