On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 10:20, Greg Stark wrote:
John A. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If any mail is rejected or bounced (ie, initially accepted for
delivery but later a DSN is returned indicating a delivery failure)
then that is a delivery failure. If you do not like what your
[Greg Stark]
Before removing a subscriber mailman should send a message with
known content testing the address. Only if such a message bounces
should a user be dropped.
Uhm... what parts of such a known content message do you think can
safely be assumed to still be discernible when Mailman
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 11:57, Greg Stark wrote:
I should not be removed from a mailing list purely on the basis of bounces of
uncontrolled messages. The messages that bounced could have been spam or
outlook worms or whatever.
In the default configuration, you won't be. You might get
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 11:41, Greg Stark wrote:
What I'm suggesting is that Mailman should *send* a message with known content
itself, and only if that message bounces should it decide the address is
invalid.
It seems difficult to test a negative (what? it doesn't bounce after 10
days? I
On Friday 26 September 2003 17:47, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Admins of low volume lists might want to change some of the bounce
processing defaults. However, by default if a list gets no bounces from
you in 7 days, it considers any previous bounce info to be stale and
throws it away. So the list
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 12:24, Simone Piunno wrote:
On Friday 26 September 2003 17:47, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Admins of low volume lists might want to change some of the bounce
processing defaults. However, by default if a list gets no bounces from
you in 7 days, it considers any previous
Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 11:41, Greg Stark wrote:
What I'm suggesting is that Mailman should *send* a message with known content
itself, and only if that message bounces should it decide the address is
invalid.
It seems difficult to test a negative
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 12:45, Greg Stark wrote:
That sounds great, except I'm subscribed to 183 lists, mostly low volume.
Periodically I get interested in some project I put aside long ago, check my
mail folder for it and discover I've stopped receiving messages months ago.
That sucks.
Greg == Greg Stark
Re: [Mailman-Developers] Re: Bounce removal parameters default values
26 Sep 2003 12:45:46 -0400
Greg Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Causing valid bounces to be sent to the envelope sender
Is required by the standards.
Greg Instead the list
On 26 Sep 2003 11:41:08 -0400
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deciding an address is invalid on the basis of messages posted to the
list is bogus. Mailman can't know whether the message posted to the
list bounced because the address was invalid, or merely because the
content of that
Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- We probe your address for a while, and if we get a bounce, then we
disable you and do the normal notifications for reinstatement.
I don't understand this one. Why would you have to poll to check for bounces.
You handle the bounce as it comes in.
- If
My principled side says that an alarming number of sites actually do
use content filters and that they are a reality of email life and we
should properly handle reality.
Content filters are not necessarily evil.
It's bouncing to the From header that's evil.
If it makes you feel better
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 12:36, J C Lawrence wrote:
At its core this is an argument between pragmatism and principle.
My principled side says that an alarming number of sites actually do
use content filters and that they are a reality of email life and we
should properly handle reality.
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:10:35 -0400
Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 12:36, J C Lawrence wrote:
At its core this is an argument between pragmatism and principle.
My principled side says that an alarming number of sites actually do
use content filters and that they
14 matches
Mail list logo
