On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:18:57 -0500 (EST) bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [*] VERP helps with knowing exactly which address on which list >>> is bouncing, but I don't think it helps much with knowing the >>> severity of the bounce. >> It doesn't. I'm strongly tempted to treat all bounces as hard, >> unless we can cheaply _and_ conclusively determine that they are >> soft. > I don't think it would be easily done, and I would venture to say > it's not worth the time investment trying to code. I'm not going to argue either way with the man who writes the patch. His choice. His call. > I think time is the key to separating hard vs soft. I'd tend to cutting on the line of RFC compliance. If its an RFC compliant bounce, and its soft... > Bounces don't seem to take up much resources, so what's the big > deal if we tolerate them over a little longer period of time? This depends on the churn rate on your list, and the posting/bounce-detection rate. Larger lists tend to have (numerically larger churn rates, and can become brutally painful quickly. At one point I had a 140K list with ~35% bad addresses (single opt-in silliness I inherited). It was *NOT* fun for a while. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. [EMAIL PROTECTED] He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
