Re: [ietf-smtp] DSNs

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 28 April 2020 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A693A0E0B for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 20:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com header.b=gKf95e4T; dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b=iRGb6AtC
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w1uoNdJBPtbs for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 20:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 654D43A0E0A for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 20:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 43122 invoked by uid 100); 28 Apr 2020 03:12:40 -0000
Date: 28 Apr 2020 03:12:40 -0000
Message-ID: <r886v8$kl3$2@gal.iecc.com>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=a861.5ea79f28.k2004; i=news@user.iecc.com; bh=zXvOUa5NlX8gP6qLN3VVlzuz4Yt1ltTyAgBQUUkWuHI=; b=gKf95e4T/WWnuPsBLWXBdYBoxVKim30wr53wkdHdad5Q6i9QJmkJuCZ/VkcpHLD4pzxBVcTdEVsqaflBkunaq4Zusj9DWGgxpmkp9JQZXChG3hHCzlI1TUcAXMYklmxgcNgCNDA+3vcFcWiSH0mJlQY+40DD4qhv7ly8a2fCDm0QdFaKQ7hSdAChXayM7UxdtMvoaRTKryhvT5DKT7XQBhLNr6Y7ougXXMK86+yEm38AVXUfnPOF5NOfFzmwUiGd
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=a861.5ea79f28.k2004; olt=news@user.iecc.com; bh=zXvOUa5NlX8gP6qLN3VVlzuz4Yt1ltTyAgBQUUkWuHI=; b=iRGb6AtCXpJqPbN9c7NGiFdtb0NkNwypgrpSZrn+nrT6+iK2D2cW6cVkaxRxtlp++BSfVnSN2kZR0+vGi2Br16HY3iCU+JFM4QArVoH40KVN5LWf8Iac5w3nqRbDIjjJce4nrWzzDi/EOeaOhVP3Y4m3xukFZQAcFi74mD5NLWR+U5Bj0FwMTuOwwE9WAdOUSBa5La3pWTGHYSE7YChcga3IBHCoaHORGQoXCVHv/uYxlHwYIdYSUOf/VngQVAQY
Organization: Taughannock Networks
References: <20200426222237.7E1351864BA8@ary.qy> <cone.1587945373.218961.31890.1004@monster.email-scan.com> <C8DB3151-D5EC-4DC6-BFA6-0B698ADB4D3D@wordtothewise.com> <cone.1588025328.577835.59133.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200426222237.7E1351864BA8@ary.qy> <cone.1587945373.218961.31890.1004@monster.email-scan.com> <C8DB3151-D5EC-4DC6-BFA6-0B698ADB4D3D@wordtothewise.com> <cone.1588025328.577835.59133.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
Cleverness: some
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/Z2N6btbEoZIzwW40lyvfZ-XMjeY>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] DSNs
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 03:12:43 -0000

In article <cone.1588025328.577835.59133.1004@monster.email-scan.com>om>,
Sam Varshavchik  <mrsam@courier-mta.com> wrote:
>I do agree that I don't /quite/ see the value-added to the recipient of  
>implementing success DSNs. Or any DSNs, for that matter. If the receiving  
>mail server does not want the email it should reject it instead of accepting  
>it and generate a failure DSN.

In general I agree but there are still situations where an MTA (mine
for example) accepts a message intending to forward it somewhere else
and then the forward fails.  Either send a DSN or drop it on the floor
at that point.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly