Lorens Kockum ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: >
: >For a site with mailing lists, a fair comparison would be extra
: >qmail bandwidth versus hours spent in list management, not qmail
: >bandwidth versus XYZ mta bandwidth.
: So why can't we have the best of both worlds?
Option: markd's idea is to normally not employ VERP on lists, only
when something bounces. Trouble is on a big list there's bound to
always be something bouncing, or in the process of being probed.
Option: What would be nice is if there was an ESMTP option
for the receiving MTA to VERP-mangle the sender address. But then
would we trust it to mangle correctly? If it didn't we still end up
holding the baby.
Option: On the postfix list there's been talk of "partial VERPs",
i.e. encode the host only, but not the local. Don't know if it's
worth the trouble.
Option: sublists are great, but they also bring into the picture
another list admin, and concomitant admin problems.
: (I've already been called an fool for bringing this question
: up, but I can't see that I got a concrete answer ... cf.
: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
(Sorry, I can't find that message. Anyway, my number is "3%".)
