[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
Harald Meland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[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
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
Roger == Roger Bivand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:26:58 +0200 (CEST) writes:
.
Roger The second thing, ...: my answer on r-help to a pixmap question
Roger was:
Roger ...
Roger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:20]
Roger ...
Roger which in the archives is
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
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 12:15, Martin Maechler wrote:
The mailman-builtin archiving engine (pipermail) is really not that
great
It's better than nothing, but no one has ever made great claims about
it. Unfortunately, no one has stepped up to improve it either although
there have been
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
--- Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 12:15, Martin Maechler wrote:
The mailman-builtin archiving engine (pipermail) is really not that
great
It's better than nothing, but no one has ever made great claims about
it. Unfortunately, no one has stepped up to
Not that I have any more free time than I used to, but I'd like to start
planning for the next major release of Mailman. Over the summer I made
some good progress on Mailman 3, but I'm beginning to think that we'll
need a MM2.2 release sooner than that. There's a ton of stuff backed up
that
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 13:22, Nadim Shaikli wrote:
Dump pipermail completely and include (or point to) MHonARC, it does a great
job and is easily integrated (UTF-8 support and all).
In the tradition of Python's batteries included philosophy, I still
want to bundle Pipermail. But I'm happy to
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, Sep 26, 2003 at 01:34:04PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
want to bundle Pipermail. But I'm happy to make it more obvious, or
easier, or whatever, to point people at MHonArc. I'm leery of including
A simple step toward this for Mailman 2.2 would be to change the URL layout
for the
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 16:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 01:34:04PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
want to bundle Pipermail. But I'm happy to make it more obvious, or
easier, or whatever, to point people at MHonArc. I'm leery of including
A simple step toward this for
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.
At 1:40 PM -0400 2003/09/26, Barry Warsaw wrote:
So I've started a wiki page to start collecting ideas. I'm not
committing to any of them, but we need a place to document and discuss
things that might go into Mailman 2.2. Here's the url:
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
Dump pipermail completely and include (or point to) MHonARC, it does a
great
job and is easily integrated (UTF-8 support and all).
I agree. Earl Hood has been doing a marvelous job with MHonarc for years
now. The guy is meticulous, keeps his software current and well documented,
and
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 20:22, Kevin McCann wrote:
I agree. Earl Hood has been doing a marvelous job with MHonarc for years
now. The guy is meticulous, keeps his software current and well documented,
and understands mail issues as well as anyone. I understand Barry's
hesitation to integrate a
Hi,
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 20:22, Kevin McCann wrote:
I agree. Earl Hood has been doing a marvelous job with MHonarc for years
now. The guy is meticulous, keeps his software current and well documented,
and understands mail issues as well as anyone. I understand Barry's
25 matches
Mail list logo
