For those of us that feel strongly that email should be a reliable transport medium.

Admin Team sysadmins at ENHTECH.COM
Tue Feb 10 18:54:58 GMT 2004

At 01:40 PM 2/10/2004, you wrote:
>I support Julian's decision of removing the "Bounce" option. To ask for this
>option knowingly that 99% of the time you're notifying the wrong sender is
>outrageous!!! ...
>I repspectfuly object to the point was made about e-mail "reliability" by
>enabling "Bounce". I think all you're doing is saturating the Internet with
>junk and costing other MTAs valuable resources and creating confusion.
>Do you call this "reliable"?
>Bouncing too  many messages may even force some other MTAs to block your
>server to stop the excessive bounces. Do you call this "reliable"?
>I have been running MS to thousands of my users for 2 years now. Our users are
>extremely happy, less confused, and trust our service. There are other ways
>that Julian made available to accomplish what you are trying to do
>without "Bouncing" messages all over the Internet.
>If you look at the whole picture, you will see Julian's point ...
>Create a patch that more fits your needs and be done with !!!

Well can we agree that it is not the bounce, but the contents of the
bounce? For example, a message that says
"You are a spammer that sent a message to user at We do not accept
unsolicted mail and blah blah blah"
as opposed to a message that says "A message to user at that
apparently came from your email address was
not recieved. If you are indeed the sender, please find a alternate means
of communicating with the user. Otherwise please disregard this message".
That sounds a lot better than he first one.

Errol Neal

More information about the MailScanner mailing list