Re: [Asrg] reject and DSN, was What are the IPs

John Levine <> Thu, 02 July 2009 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197BE3A6ADA for <>; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -19.179
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rf+4TunUSqg1 for <>; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6C73A6C67 for <>; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 30276 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2009 13:54:10 -0000
Received: from ( by with QMQP; 2 Jul 2009 13:54:10 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k0907;; bh=o9ZSB6wTVwPzevFWHpz16pladeFsJcmZSDw4qCKxFbM=; b=RSCLdC/0+qubRo3voh5SF/OrdfX+I9FuVZ1ZKtRg9mle17qAx3MGVLFrIzLKLOXtq6gNrCmeQ+S7yz/IjTIjpE8aoxzFHq2D8wgpplyqZPHq43QTZZ2QwlgOdWOBe6fbr2j0OxBqbQMiBZP3L4s5JjftLXW6LIbE86g+WtNKVrk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k0907; bh=o9ZSB6wTVwPzevFWHpz16pladeFsJcmZSDw4qCKxFbM=; b=iQ5YdxhIN6FDgM3ePo2GhKTz3AAkBjvi8K/C0NF+Bg9fYsGk15xUhyWGZ7UNmUHRjarTeRIJaK+5y7DlxjloXldZNczWnR0KlKR8HVm+vaEVYuo8kBsB2YtSoOy7kiAE614bq3UST9xxhhQRTZywLkj9Pvd8tqCnx5sipOdYbb8=
Date: 2 Jul 2009 13:54:09 -0000
Message-ID: <>
From: John Levine <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] reject and DSN, was What are the IPs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:54:14 -0000

>> Why should it do anything different from what it does the other 95% of
>> the time?  SPF is far from universal, and a whole lot of SPF lookups
>> end up saying "maybe".
>You've avoided the question. SPF and DKIM are both growing quite rapidly. 
>Some day, you'll get a definite answer for most of your mail. Or, perhaps 
>it'll be some other sender domain authentication technology.

That may be so at some time in the distant future, but for the
forseeable future there will always be a signficant number of maybes.

>So, why should one NOT send a DSN when the domain is authenticated?

Because rejects work better, and DSNs are a second rate substitute
when the recpient system can't tell during the SMTP session that the
delivery will fail.

You appear to be under the impression that a sender would obtain and
use valuable information from a DSN that can't be sent in a rejection,
which is completely contrary to my experience.  I don't spend an
enormous amount of time reading DSNs, but my mailing list software
does and all it really wants to know is the address that bounced,
which rejections reliably provide.  DSNs often give no hint what
address the bouncing message was sent to.  That's why we have to use
kludges like VERP.