Re: bug tracker eating bounces violates RFCs' spirit
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:07:04AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Well, "you are guilty of violating the spirit of the RFCs", I suppose,
> in that the sender is not getting feedback that is mails are not
> getting thru.
> See how the problem went on for so many days without people noticing
> You are relying on "odd, Bob didn't ever seem to respond about Item W.
> He must have accepted my viewpoint." Only later do we find that using
> X-Debbugs-CC masks problems, whereas CC will show them right away.
> Why not, when sending bounces, have a instruction on how to turn off
> receiving bounces, instead of just assuming that nobody wants them.
> That way the experts could turn off the bounces, instead of the
> non-experts needing to turn them on, for which there is by the way, no
Except that there's a shitload of MTAs in the world and each one of them has
their own method of indicating which recipients failed of which message. For
many messages, parsing could be automated; for a lot of others, however, it
couldn't, and the bounce would still not find its way to the real sender.
Only if we reengineered the thing to use email@example.com as the
sender... send a patch?
2. That which causes joy or happiness.