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 guess it'll never bounce). I prefer Mailman's positive test approach of sending several notices and requiring an explicit confirmation for reinstatement. > This is what ezmlm does. As much as I dislike ezmlm and qmail for other > reasons and like Mailman for other reasons, this is one thing it gets right > and Mailman gets wrong. > > 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 > particular message triggered a content-based filter. Bounce messages triggered by content-based filters are evil and must be eradicated. When SoBig.F came out, we had effective filters in place within a day or so for the specific viruses themselves. What absolutely killed us was all the "helpful" bounces that the zillions of content filters send when they block such a message. And even if you think /that's/ okay, not putting limits on those block messages is still evil. -Barry _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
