From: grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se   
      
   On Fri, 2013-04-05, Barry Margolin wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   >  Jorgen Grahn  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Fri, 2013-04-05, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:   
   >> ...   
   >> > It used to be that mail servers had the VRFY command that would verify   
   >> > that a recipient existed. Now most just tell you (if you send VRFY) to   
   >> > mail and see what happens.   
   >> >   
   >> > Many will bounce mail if the recipient doesn't exist, but some   
   >> > silently discard it.   
   >>   
   >> And those who do discard are a pox on the Internet. "Return to sender"   
   >> was designed to be something you could rely on.   
   >   
   > Unfortunately, spammers have forced many decisions that are violations   
   > of otherwise good practice. Mail bounces result in innocent bystanders   
   > being inundated with blowback.   
      
   That's what I hinted at in the part you snipped:   
      
   >> I don't know how common this is, but there's lot of collateral   
   >> damage from the war of spam and this may be one thing.   
      
   But you make it sound as if disabling all bounces is necessary on the   
   internet today.  I suspect a minority of servers do this.  Maybe a tiny   
   minority?  I tested one server (which worked) but surely someone has   
   collected statistics somewhere ...   
      
   IMO, part of the problem with spam is overzealous mail admins use it   
   as an excuse to tinker with their servers, until the countermeasures   
   are more damaging than the spam itself.   
      
   /Jorgen   
      
   --   
     // Jorgen Grahn    O  o   .   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)