On 05/02/2014 10:51 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 05/02/2014 05:21 PM, Andrew Partan wrote: > > Is there some way of ignoring the DMCAC bounces? That way a message > > From: some...@yahoo.com will not not increase the bounce count of > > all Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail, ATT, MSN, and Comcast users. > > It's difficult. If The local MTA is refused and reports directly to > Mailman at SMTP time, Mailman will only see the SMTP status, e.g. 554, > 521, or 550 in your examples. It is not possible to distinguish DMARC > from other failures just by this 5xx status. > > More likely, the local MTA accepted the message from Mailman and is now > delivering a DSN. If every MTA delivered an RFC 3464 compliant DSN with > an RFC 1893 extended status code, one could just ignore 5.7.x bounces, > but even your example services don't all use a 5.7.x code even though > the RFC is clear that that is the code for security or policy rejection. > > Then there is the fact that many real world MTAs report in their own way > and don't necessarily provide enough information to tell what the reason > is. Take a look at Mailman/Bouncers/* to get an idea of what you'd be up > against. > > > Yahoo & ATT say this: > > 554 5.7.9 Message not accepted for policy reasons. See > > http://postmaster.yahoo.com/errors/postmaster-28.html > > > > AOL says this: > > 521 5.2.1 : (DMARC) This message failed DMARC Evaluation > > and is being refused due to provided DMARC Policy > > > > Comcast says this: > > 550 5.2.0 x4fx1n03n5DGQ1A034fysP Message rejected due to > > DMARC. Please see > > http://postmaster.comcast.net/smtp-error-codes.php#DM000001 > > > > MSN/Hotmail say this: > > 550 5.7.0 (BAY0-MCn-Fn) Unfortunately, messages from (N.N.N.N) > > on behalf of (yahoo.com) could not be delivered due to > > domain owner policy restrictions.)
Yahoo, ATT, MSN, Hotmail, and Google all seem to respond with 5.7.x status codes. If ignoring 5.7.x responses is a good approach, and a large fraction (significant majority, I suspect) of users use services that give 5.7.x responses, and mailman is already able to parse those responses, then it sounds like ignoring 5.7.x bounces (or counting them differently) is a viable step to take. ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
