[87252] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Recording the return path (was Re: Clueless anti-virus
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Per Heldal)
Mon Dec 12 07:45:22 2005
From: "Per Heldal" <heldal@eml.cc>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <OF760B465C.324BA04A-ON802570D5.003CDC38-802570D5.003D2DEA@btradianz.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:44:50 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:08:14 +0000, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com said:
[snip]
>
> Not quite the only way. If a postprocessing step is needed,
> it is trivial for the SMTP server to record any return path info
> that it knows in order for the post-processor to be able to
> send DSN's as accurately as the SMTP server itself.
>
> What we have here is yet another failure of imagination.
>
Has anybody claimed that post-processing within the SMTP-server is
better than postprocessing done elsewhere? The issue was
in-line-processing vs post-processing.
No information you can collect from the SMTP-session or elsewhere can
ever compete with the accuracy in notification gained if you reject the
message in-line and leave the responsibility for sender-notification
with the sending MTA.
//per
--
Per Heldal
heldal@eml.cc
