On Tue, 4 May 2004 07:03:26 -0400
Paul Tomblin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do have some control over the MTA. But it does seem a little
> ridiculous to filter out warnings (but not errors) just because
> mailman insists on treating warnings as errors.
Reliably distinguishing is non-trivial.
At 12:20 PM +0100 2004/05/04, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
The ISP is sending bounces. The fact that the text in the message says
these are warning messages rather than bounces does not change the fact
that the messages are bounces.
Technically, they are not "bounces". They are Delivery Status
--On Tuesday, May 04, 2004 10:25 AM -0400 J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004 07:03:26 -0400
Paul Tomblin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do have some control over the MTA. But it does seem a little
ridiculous to filter out warnings (but not errors) just because
mailman ins
And how many "RFC-Standard" DSNs are out there, compared to non-standard? He's right, it is not the
least bit trivial.
Bob
Carson Gaspar wrote:
--On Tuesday, May 04, 2004 10:25 AM -0400 J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004 07:03:26 -0400
Paul Tomblin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:40 AM -0400 2004/05/04, Carson Gaspar quoted JC Lawrence:
Reliably distinguishing is non-trivial.
Incorrect. Parsing RFC-standard DSNs is trivial. I wrote the code to
do it back in the old days when I ran the firewalls mailing list.
I think JC was talking about the broader subject, more
Quoting Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> And how many "RFC-Standard" DSNs are out there, compared to non-standard?
> He's right, it is not the least bit trivial.
The point is that Mailman already has code to parse dozens of different
bounce messages. I don't see why everybody is get
On Tue, 04 May 2004 11:40:49 -0400
Carson Gaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --On Tuesday, May 04, 2004 10:25 AM -0400 J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Reliably distinguishing is non-trivial.
> Incorrect. Parsing RFC-standard DSNs is trivial. I wrote the code to
> do it back in the
[ I am on the list, guys - no need to CC me... ]
--On Tuesday, May 04, 2004 12:40:27 -0400 J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
That's true only while you maintain the "RFC-standard DSNs" qualifier.
Very few of the DSNs my lists receive are RFC-conformant.
So if they aren't compliant, we trea
...Because it's not just one more. I re-wrote the bounce handling for my own
2.0.x boxes, and spent endless hours trying to keep up with all the
difference bounce messages that weren't caught. I ended up giving up. If
their ISP is broken enough that it generates bounce messages, then their
u
On May 4, 2004, at 10:38 AM, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If
their ISP is broken enough that it generates bounce messages, then
their
unsubscription problem isn't mine.
it's not always easy to convince their users of that.
Which ties back to the original problem. Those "warning"
not-really-bou
Quoting Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I haven't looked at the latest handlers, but my code says something like: if
> the person hasn't bounced in two days (of messages each day), then reset
> their counter. So if they constantly generate these messages, there is a
> very real pro
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 05:06, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> They should not do this if the mail is marked as "low priority" - ie
> Precedence set to values like "list" or "junk"
Absolutely right. And you can hack Mailman all you like to try to
recognize these warnings, but in the long run I don't t
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 11:28, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > Mailman cannot parse every form of error message - in that direction
> > lies madness. Does it need to be polyglot as well?
>
> No, but we could make an attempt to better handle the standard
> format messages, as described by the RFCs
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 11:56, Brad Knowles wrote:
> I think JC was talking about the broader subject, more than just
> the standard DSNs.
>
> I agree with you that we could do a better job of parsing and
> handling the standard DSNs, but I agree with JC that this is a very
> tough t
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 13:48, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> And the only way to make THEM fix their damned systems to not bounce
> stuff that shouldn't bounce is to make it a visible problem to them.
> You don't do that by "fixing" mailman. Unfortunately, it'll cause some
> pain for users, but my fe
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 13:42, Paul Tomblin wrote:
> The code is already a nest of special cases. It won't hurt the pristine
> nature of the perfect code to add a small check and NOT mishandle one
> thing that is erroneously treated as a bounce. Especially since it
> appears that somebody already
On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:48:16 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 4, 2004, at 10:38 AM, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Which ties back to the original problem. Those "warning"
> not-really-bounces are anachronisms of the days when all this was tied
> to UUCP.
Good point.
>
handlers, I asked for help with modifying one of them, and everybody
treats me like I'm asking for how to draw a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
The code is already a nest of special cases. It won't hurt the
pristine
nature of the perfect code to add a small check and NOT mishandle one
thing that is
Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which ties back to the original problem. Those "warning"
> not-really-bounces are anachronisms of the days when all this was tied
> to UUCP. Basically, they should die. the only way you convince sites
It doesn't really matter *why*, by god. The fact
Is it possible to have a new feature in the new version of mailman where a
site administrator can limit each list individually by how many members and
how much traffic it can have and also set a default for these values in
mm_cfg.py?
Also, it would be great to sort the member list by domain and by
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 03:13, Paul Tomblin wrote:
> I tried asking this on mailman-users, and got totally ignored both times I
> asked. Here is my problem: One of my mailing list users has an ISP that
> refuses email for hours at a time, and the ISP that they get their email
> through, panix.com,
At 10:06 AM +0100 2004/05/04, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
They should not do this if the mail is marked as "low priority" - ie
Precedence set to values like "list" or "junk". It could be worth
talking to panix about this.
I believe that I had seen and responded to his previous posting
on mailm
Quoting Brad Knowles ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> At 10:06 AM +0100 2004/05/04, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> > They should not do this if the mail is marked as "low priority" - ie
> > Precedence set to values like "list" or "junk". It could be worth
> > talking to panix about this.
>
> I believe t
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 12:03, Paul Tomblin wrote:
> I do have some control over the MTA. But it does seem a little ridiculous
> to filter out warnings (but not errors) just because mailman insists on
> treating warnings as errors.
The ISP is sending bounces. The fact that the text in the message
Quoting Nigel Metheringham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 12:03, Paul Tomblin wrote:
> > I do have some control over the MTA. But it does seem a little ridiculous
> > to filter out warnings (but not errors) just because mailman insists on
> > treating warnings as errors.
>
> The ISP
Quoting Nigel Metheringham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Mailman cannot parse every form of error message - in that direction
> lies madness. Does it need to be polyglot as well?
By the way, I notice that Mailman/Bouncers/SimpleWarning seems to be where
the standard Sendmail 4 hour warning is handled, b
The Anarcat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [sourceforge seems to be down, so I post this here]
> Hi there,
> We developped a reliable solution for running lists with the same name
> on different domains on the same Mailman installation.
> I implemented that on top of the Mailman 2.1.1-5.1 Debian s
27 matches
Mail list logo
