Dale Newfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Greg Stark wrote:
> > I like very much that the mail systems reject virus and worm mails.
>
> That's silly. You should instead like very much that mail clients weren't
> susceptible to such things and the delivery mechanism didn't
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 y
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Greg Stark wrote:
> I like very much that the mail systems reject virus and worm mails.
That's silly. You should instead like very much that mail clients weren't
susceptible to such things and the delivery mechanism didn't have to
coddle the mail clients.
> Mailman should no
"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
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:10:35 -0400
Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 12:36, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> At its core this is an argument between pragmatism and principle.
>>
>> My principled side says that an alarming number of sites actually do
>> use content filters and
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 12:36, J C Lawrence wrote:
> At its core this is an argument between pragmatism and principle.
>
> My principled side says that an alarming number of sites actually do
> use content filters and that they are a reality of email life and we
> should properly handle reali
> My principled side says that an alarming number of sites actually do
> use content filters and that they are a reality of email life and we
> should properly handle reality.
Content filters are not necessarily evil.
It's bouncing to the From header that's evil.
If it makes you feel bett
Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - We probe your address for a while, and if we get a bounce, then we
> disable you and do the normal notifications for reinstatement.
I don't understand this one. Why would you have to poll to check for bounces.
You handle the bounce as it comes in.
>
On 26 Sep 2003 11:41:08 -0400
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>>>>> "Greg" == Greg Stark
>>>>> "Re: [Mailman-Developers] Re: Bounce removal parameters default values"
>>>>> 26 Sep 2003 12:45:46 -0400
Greg> Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Greg> Causing
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 12:45, Greg Stark wrote:
> That sounds great, except I'm subscribed to 183 lists, mostly low volume.
> Periodically I get interested in some project I put aside long ago, check my
> mail folder for it and discover I've stopped receiving messages months ago.
> That sucks.
Agr
Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 12:24, Simone Piunno wrote:
> On Friday 26 September 2003 17:47, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> > Admins of low volume lists might want to change some of the bounce
> > processing defaults. However, by default if a list gets no bounces from
> > you in 7 days, it considers any previ
On Friday 26 September 2003 17:47, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Admins of low volume lists might want to change some of the bounce
> processing defaults. However, by default if a list gets no bounces from
> you in 7 days, it considers any previous bounce info to be stale and
> throws it away. So the li
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 gu
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 11:57, Greg Stark wrote:
> I should not be removed from a mailing list purely on the basis of bounces of
> uncontrolled messages. The messages that bounced could have been spam or
> outlook worms or whatever.
In the default configuration, you won't be. You might get /disabl
Harald Meland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Greg Stark]
>
> > Before removing a subscriber mailman should send a message with
> > known content testing the address. Only if such a message bounces
> > should a user be dropped.
>
> Uhm... what parts of such a known content message do you think ca
[Greg Stark]
> Before removing a subscriber mailman should send a message with
> known content testing the address. Only if such a message bounces
> should a user be dropped.
Uhm... what parts of such a known content message do you think can
safely be assumed to still be discernible when Mailman
The problem I described in January is still happening. I find the current
bounce processing of mailman to be inadequate. Something more like the bounce
processing of ezmlm is needed.
I should not be removed from a mailing list purely on the basis of bounces of
uncontrolled messages. The messages
19 matches
Mail list logo
