Date: 22 AUG 92 11:37:35 GMT
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From: Ned Freed <NED@INNOSOFT.COM>
From: Ned Freed <NED@INNOSOFT.COM>
Subject: Re:  No copy of returned mail for POSTMASTER - help please
X-VMS-To: IN%"MCKEEVER@VAX2.CSTP.UMKC.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: IN%"info-multinet@tgv.com"
Organization: The INFO-MULTINET Community

> > On most systems that I am familiar with, non-delivery messages are only
> > returned to the sender.  If, for any reason, the message cannot be returned
> > to the originator, it is then delivered to the local postmaster.

> Unless I did something weird when I installed mine, I think PMDF sends
> bounced mail to Postmaster and the sender by default.

This is configurable in PMDF on a per-channel basis. Options range from
nosendpost, which generates no postmaster copy no matter what, errsendpost,
which sends a copy to the postmaster if the regular return address, to
sendpost, which gives the postmaster an unconditional copy.

> > .............  The behavior you describe is rather questionable from
> > an invasion of privacy standpoint.

> Actually, I never thought of this.  Since our Postmaster is a paragon of
> virtue with integrity beyond reproach, me ;-), no problems have arisen.

Speaking as a Postmaster, let me say that I regard the contents of user
messages as strictly confidential. I luckily received training in keeping such
secrets when I was very young since I'm the son of a doctor -- the stuff I knew
about as a little kid never ceases to amaze me.

PMDF also provides the option to deliver just the headers of messages to the
Postmaster. This support was incomplete in V4.0 but was considerably enhanced
in V4.1. I am also considering the addition of support in PMDF for
sensitivity-based handling in this area now that message sensitivity levels are
standardized (RFC1327). 

> I don't typically read the content of the messages that are bounced.  I
> usually stop at the header.  I thought it was a good idea to receive a copy
> of bounced mail so I could help to route mail to the intended recipient or
> be aware of problems with the mailer.  Kind-of a proactive scheme so I
> could fix things and not have to wait 'til a user told me things didn't
> work.  I've also made a mistake and started the mailer when I shouldn't
> have, and have been able to forward the mail I accidentally forced to
> bounce to my users thanks to this feature.

I've had at least one case where I inadvertently became aware of certain
extra-connubial goings-on that clearly were not common knowledge. (I am able to
mention it now only because this subsequently became very public information --
in short, something of a scandal.) This happened simply as a result of my
noticing an unusual pattern of messages being sent between people who otherwise
would be unlikely to communicate. (In other words, traffic analysis.) Then lo
and behold a bounce-o-gram dropped in and the subject line, as we say, said it
all.

I mention this to illustrate two points. First, it doesn't take much to figure
out who's sleeping with who if you want to know such things. Logs of messages
sent and received are often more than sufficient deductive ammunition. And
second, inadvertent knowledge of things is going to leak out no matter what
precautions are taken.

In the final analysis you're better off having a Postmaster who is aware of his
or her responsibilities and takes them seriously. Your position as you describe
it is definitely on the right track.

> We had a instance today in fact where this came in handy, a user who has
> been playing around was sending out a bogus return address that was causing
> mail to bounce when other users replied to his messages.  I wouldn't have
> been able to help him or the users that were trying to reach him if I
> hadn't gotten the bounced mail too.

Exactly so. The privacy gained by denying Postmasters the resources to provide
such assistance is more marginal than most people think. 

				Ned
X-Gateway-Source-Info: INTERNET