From: grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se   
      
   On Sat, 2013-04-06, Martijn Lievaart wrote:   
   > On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 04:58:08 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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 ...   
   >   
   > Disabling bounces, or at least severely limit them, is sound practice. It   
   > is better to reject then to bounce.   
      
   Now that I think of it, it was rejecting I thinking of.  In my test,   
   three MTAs were involved: my local one (A), my ISP's relay (B), and the   
   destination (C).  C rejected the unknown recipient, and B generated   
   the bounce mail.  As far as I can tell, this is safe.   
      
   I'd have to refresh my SMTP knowledge to understand this other form of   
   bounces you're referring to.  I always saw the MTA for example.org   
   accepting a mail to foo@example.org as a /promise/ that the foo mailbox   
   exists and the mail has reached it ... any other design seems   
   extremely dangerous.  But of course there's backup MXes ...   
      
   /Jorgen   
      
   --   
     // Jorgen Grahn    O  o   .   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)