I think bouncing at the MTA is slightly sub-optimal and that mailman
could generate a more informative bounce indicating how to contact the
server admin to get the list revived. Probably in the web interface
there could be a disabled lists category. Server admins would
probably want to be
On Jul 11, 2011, at 06:37 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
With our current setup the disabled (or graveyarded) list is removed
from the /var/lib/mailman/lists dir and the aliases regenerated, so
the MTA bounces messages to it and the admin interface for it cannot
be logged into. Disabled lists are listed in
On Jul 12, 2011, at 01:06 PM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
Bouncing certainly is suboptimal, since it may create collateral spam. Better
to reject the message at SMTP time with a 5xx response than to bounce.
That's an interesting take on it. The LMTP server in Mailman could reject
messages addressed to
Hi Barry, it's just a matter of seconds to add this enabled flag to the
django webui, just let me know once it is in core.
Am Dienstag, den 12.07.2011, 11:10 -0400 schrieb Barry Warsaw:
On Jul 11, 2011, at 06:37 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
With our current setup the disabled (or graveyarded) list
* Barry Warsaw ba...@list.org:
On Jul 12, 2011, at 01:06 PM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
Bouncing certainly is suboptimal, since it may create collateral spam. Better
to reject the message at SMTP time with a 5xx response than to bounce.
That's an interesting take on it. The LMTP server in Mailman
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 17:23 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
Is disabling a list a temporary measure? If it is, should the server reply a
temporary error?
In my humble opinion, an intentionally disabled list should cause the
mail system to generate a 500 class error (permanent error). 400
* Lindsay Haisley fmo...@fmp.com:
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 17:23 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
Is disabling a list a temporary measure? If it is, should the server reply a
temporary error?
In my humble opinion, an intentionally disabled list should cause the
mail system to generate a 500
On Jul 12, 2011, at 08:52 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (e.g., mailbox
not found, no access, or command rejected for policy reasons)
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5321.txt, section 4.2.3. Reply
Codes in
Barry Warsaw writes:
But maybe the OP has a different use case in mind and we could have a need
for
both a long-term, permanently failing retired lists, and shorter term,
temporarily failing disabled lists.
I don't really understand under what circumstances a list owner would
want to
