On Oct 9, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Returned message content in DSNs is often essential information for
debugging of mail system problems. Blindly insisting that DSNs
should not return subject message content is shortsighted. We have
already crippled the mail system too much as the result of naive
and shortsighted spam countermeasures.
The recommendation was to conform to requirements of RFC3464, but
could have been a bit more explicit in what was meant by original
content. The concern is the abuse of DSNs as an indirect content
delivery mechanism. Including original content runs a much greater
risk that any DSN then becomes blocked or dropped. A more difficult
problem to solve occurs when no DSN is found after a message delivery
fails for some reason. Less is more in terms of what should be
included of original message content.
Per recipient:
original-recipient-field
final-recipient-field
action-field "failed" / "delayed" / "delivered" / "relayed" /
"expanded"
status-field
remote-mta-field
diagnostic-code-field
last-attempt-date-field
final-log-id-field
will-retry-until-field
Per message:
original-envelope-id-field
reporting-mta-field
dsn-gateway-field
received-from-mta-field
arrival-date-field
Is this what you would like to see in a DSN?
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf