3 ms·

Tbh queued for delivery doesn't mean the email has been successfully delivered, BUT, the mail server should inform the user if a delivery cannot be performed.

Tbh queued for delivery doesn't mean the email has been successfully delivered, BUT, the mail server should inform the user if a delivery cannot be performed. Most probably this whole problem realted to silently dropping emails is intended behavior, a type of shadowbanning applied to emails to prevent spammers from knowing their email was blocked. Too bad that this in turn causes huge issues for legitimate users

denton-scratch 5y ago
Not "should"; it's a "MUST". If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message. This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse-path in the envelope. The recipient of this notification MUST be the address from the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). And: As discussed in Section 7.8 and Section 7.9 below, dropping mail without notification of the sender is permitted in practice. However, it is extremely dangerous and violates a long tradition and community expectations that mail is either delivered or returned. If silent message-dropping is misused, it could easily undermine confidence in the reliability of the Internet's mail systems. So silent dropping of messages should be considered only in those cases where there is very high confidence that the messages are seriously fraudulent or otherwise inappropriate. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5321#section-4.5.4 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5321#section-4.5.4 The RFC makes clear the long-standing principle that a mail-server operator is entitled to make his own rules as to what mail he is and isn't willing to accept. But he's NOT allowed to accept it for delivery, and then silently discard it. Hotmail was always awful for this. There are comments up-thread to the effect that Microsoft might be trying to squeeze out self-hosted mailservers. I suspect that was the case in the Hotmail days. Either it worked, and nobody self-hosts any more (FALSE) or it didn't work, and they should have given up. I suspect the same policies are still in place due to corporate inertia.
- arpa 5y ago
  Microsoft ignoring standars? Impossible!

denton-scratch 5y ago

Not "should"; it's a "MUST". If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message. This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse-path in the envelope. The recipient of this notification MUST be the address from the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). And: As discussed in Section 7.8 and Section 7.9 below, dropping mail without notification of the sender is permitted in practice. However, it is extremely dangerous and violates a long tradition and community expectations that mail is either delivered or returned. If silent message-dropping is misused, it could easily undermine confidence in the reliability of the Internet's mail systems. So silent dropping of messages should be considered only in those cases where there is very high confidence that the messages are seriously fraudulent or otherwise inappropriate. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5321#section-4.5.4 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5321#section-4.5.4 The RFC makes clear the long-standing principle that a mail-server operator is entitled to make his own rules as to what mail he is and isn't willing to accept. But he's NOT allowed to accept it for delivery, and then silently discard it. Hotmail was always awful for this. There are comments up-thread to the effect that Microsoft might be trying to squeeze out self-hosted mailservers. I suspect that was the case in the Hotmail days. Either it worked, and nobody self-hosts any more (FALSE) or it didn't work, and they should have given up. I suspect the same policies are still in place due to corporate inertia.

arpa 5y ago
Microsoft ignoring standars? Impossible!