Jo Rhett writes:
On Mar 4, 2008, at 9:27 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
You see, as Jo Rhett points out (apparently without understanding), it
will have *no noticable effect* in the short run because *the proposed
change won't affect existing Mailman installations*, not even those
Jo Rhett writes:
On Mar 24, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I still don't get what you mean by properly deal with DSNs. Are you
saying that an MTA should never return a DSN? It should either reject
the mail during the incoming SMTP transaction or forever hold its
piece?
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Jo Rhett writes:
On Mar 24, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I still don't get what you mean by properly deal with DSNs. Are you
saying that an MTA should never return a DSN? It should either reject
the mail during the incoming SMTP transaction or
Mark Sapiro wrote:
Well, it does simplify the MTA's job. Instead of all that queueing and
retrying and such, you just have during SMTP (hold on a minute while I
attempt to deliver this to the next hop and return that result to
you)*N, a system that doesn't seem to scale well. Either that or
On Mar 25, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Eino Tuominen wrote:
Mark Sapiro wrote:
Well, it does simplify the MTA's job. Instead of all that queueing
and
retrying and such, you just have during SMTP (hold on a minute
while I
attempt to deliver this to the next hop and return that result to
you)*N,
Eino Tuominen wrote:
You are missing the point. Of course you can inform of a delivery
problem, but only when you really need to do it.
That's not what Jo Rhett seems to be saying at
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2008-March/019928.html.
--
Mark Sapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jason Pruim wrote:
But how would you scale that to the size of say... yahoo? Multiple data
centers around the world, all processing mail for different domains
under yahoo's control... How would one be able to synchronize all that
data from tons of different places like that?
Well,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:37 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Mar 4, 2008, at 6:00 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
In any case, it's hard to sympathize with your claim of urgency.
Mark's intention to release 2.1.10 has been known for many months.
This proposal
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Eino Tuominen writes:
You are missing the point. Of course you can inform of a delivery
problem, but only when you really need to do it. Every organisation
should know of every recipient within their authority. You should know
the recipient if you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 24, 2008, at 10:03 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Mar 24, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I still don't get what you mean by properly deal with DSNs. Are you
saying that an MTA should never return a DSN? It should either reject
the mail during
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 25, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Eino Tuominen wrote:
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Eino Tuominen writes:
You are missing the point. Of course you can inform of a delivery
problem, but only when you really need to do it. Every organisation
should know
On Mar 24, 2008, at 10:49 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
What? I'm sorry, but Mailman has been blamed for backscatter for
like 3 years going now.
If you say so. I first heard of the issue within the last year, and
that in the context of bouncing back whole messages. And it wasn't
from
On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:21 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Pure bluster. You have no data about floods of new installations,
We turn up X customers a week. We see X customers a week running
into problems and getting blacklisted for backscatter. This is the
flood I am trying to solve.
What
On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:35 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Unfortunately this attitude does seem to be catching hold. I was told
So much for the whole concept of a store-and-forward mail system. :-(
You are stuck in the last century, aren't you? No insult intended,
honestly. Nobody I
On Mar 25, 2008, at 10:10 AM, Jason Pruim wrote:
But how would you scale that to the size of say... yahoo? Multiple
data centers around the world, all processing mail for different
domains under yahoo's control... How would one be able to synchronize
all that data from tons of different places
On Mar 25, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Eino Tuominen wrote:
You are missing the point. Of course you can inform of a delivery
problem, but only when you really need to do it.
That's not what Jo Rhett seems to be saying at
On Mar 25, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
You are missing the point. Of course you can inform of a delivery
problem, but only when you really need to do it. Every organisation
should know of every recipient within their authority. You should
know
the recipient if you accept a
On Mar 25, 2008, at 1:58 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Now that there's documentation, I don't think you need to be that
severe.
The documentation is insufficient as it stands. The mailing list
headers would contain addresses which no longer exist.
But yes, an official documentation
On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:51 PM, Eino Tuominen wrote:
The times, they are a-changing... We are facing a new world and old
habits are not the best ways to do things anymore. I'm certainly
not one
of those deeming all DSN's as evil, but it really hurts our users when
some spammer starts a
On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:20 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think you will be happier with what is possible in Mailman 3. In
mm3 we have a working LMTP server, those it's based on asyncore and
its scalability is questionable. Although I have not yet done
this, I plan to tie the rule chain
Jo Rhett wrote:
Not all bounces are backscatter. My servers all deliver DSNs to the
sender. My servers don't send backscatter.
So now we're back to my original question. Under what circumstances is
it acceptable for an MTA to accept a message and then later return an
undeliverable DSN?
I
Stephen J. Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately this attitude does seem to be catching hold. I was told
recently that a secondary MX would have to stop functioning as such
because his ISP insists that he have an up to the second list of all
valid mailboxes at my site; he's not
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Mar 24, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I still don't get what you mean by properly deal with DSNs. Are you
saying that an MTA should never return a DSN? It should either reject
the mail during the incoming SMTP transaction or forever hold its
piece?
Yes. And
Jo Rhett wrote:
I don't care what is done. Do something that makes it better.
This is an open source project. You are welcome to use it as is or
modify it to your liking. (I believe--someone confirm, please) you even
have the right to distribute your modified version. You're welcome to
24 matches
Mail list logo
