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!dpk@brl-vgr.ARPA From: dpk@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Kingston) Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: smtp, errors and delivery Message-ID: <372@hou3c.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Mar-84 23:07:22 EST Article-I.D.: hou3c.372 Posted: Mon Mar 5 23:07:22 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Mar-84 07:39:56 EST Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Lines: 19 To: don.provan@cmu-cs-a Cc: Rudy.Nedved@cmu-cs-a, Mark Crispin, Header-People@mit-mc There are two different philosophies being used here. One says "Deliver the message at all costs", while the other says "Make a reliable deliver, or return it". The first is the method used by people that will give you a null return addresss (MAIL FROM:<>) while the second is the more conservative stratagy and gives you a better guarantee that you will know that the message was delivered (or not). MMDF (the system I maintain) is a more conservative mailer. We rigorously adhere to the transfer of responsibility model and we always give a return address (even it is the postmaster address). We do not attempt to supply alternate MAIL FROM addresses, and as it turns out we now almost never get rejections based on the MAIL FROM address. This was not true when the net first changed protocols though. Mark and others are not wrong in what they are doing, it just shows a difference in priorities. Cheers, -Doug-