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 > > receiving mail systems reject or bounce that is not a Mailman problem. > > I like very much that the mail systems reject virus and worm mails. I don't > like that mailman extrapolates from that failure to assuming the mailbox is > broken and it should unsubscribe it. That's bogus. > > Mailman should not take any such drastic action purely on the basis of a > bounce from a message with content it didn't control. It has no idea *why* the > message bounced and no idea whether it means future messages will bounce or > not.
I've been swamped, but I'll just quickly chime in that we've seen lots of unintentional unsubs since moving python-list over to Mailman 2.1.3. Unintentional means that the person's mailbox is still valid, and they still want to be on the list, but they got disabled without understanding why. I consider it important to fix this for 2.1.4, although I haven't decided how yet. One thing will be to include a bounce example with re-enable notifications. A second thing may be to send probes when the bounce threshold has been reached, but I need to think more about the exact machinery for that and whether that's appropriate for a patch release or not. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
