Barry, Thanks. It may be a fair summary of the thread, which I have not finished going through. However, we have spent a lot of time on calls and earlier threads discussing email delivery issues, including different kinds of bounces: e.g., delivery failed permanently vs "couldn't deliver but we'll try again." We still are working on how to define delivery failure for the purposes of when p/p provider will have to take further action. Don -----Original Message----- From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 3:08 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology The discussion seems to imply there are two possible outcomes of testing an email address: It bounces, or it does not. But in reality there are many possible outcomes: 1. Bounces. 2. Delivered to the intended party. 3. Disappears into a black hole. 4. Delivered but ignored, perhaps to a spam inbox for example. 5. Auto-replied (e.g., this is an unmonitored email address...) 6. Delivered but to someone other than the intended party who may or may not take any action. I usually delete such email as it's indistinguishable from spam. There are other possibilities. It seems to me the entire scheme being discussed can only really deal with the first two cases, or put better all but the first are taken as equivalent. That is, a bounce is indicative of non-compliance, anything else is de facto compliant. Is that a fair summary? -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*