[SpamCop-List] Re: Why not allow bounces? They are required by RFC822!

[Mike Easter]

cb wrote:
> I seem to be caught inside the lookinglass.  The server I administer
> (161.55.120.130) is being listed by spamcop due to bounced messages.
> Bounced messages are REQUIRED BY RFC822 (emphasis added) as stated in
> your FAQ.  So to make spamcop happy we are expected to become
> noncompliant with the controlling RFC.
>
> I don't get the logic here.

There's going to be a big problem communicating if a word like 'bounce'
gets used as if its definition were unambiguous.  Since bounce shouldn't
be used without characterizing exactly what is meant, some other term or
terms should be used;  or else we should define various so-called
bounces, such as belated or soft vs hard bounces.

This bounce confusion also is exacerbated by the fact that a sender of a
mail might see a legitimate hard bounce from their own provider's
mailserver and a 'soft' bounce from some recipient server's belated
delivery status notification which is now a newmail to the sending From.

If we are going to be talking about a recipient server, that server
should be *rejecting* a mail during the smtp transaction.  That server
should *not* be accepting a mail for delivery and then manufacturing a
newmail addressed to the From of an undelivered mail.

That manufactured server newmail addressed to an undelivered mail From
is going to be abusive to all of the bogus Froms which appear on the
spams and viral propagations.  Those 'bounces' are going to be
misdirected, abusive, and spamcop reportable.  Spamcop reporting them is
going to result in a server being spamcop blocklisted, which is going to
cause grief for the server admin.



-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin