or
Outlook worm messages to be the only messages for days.
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I find I am being removed from mailman mailing lists left and right. I believe
> the default values for the bounce removal should be reconsidered. It's
> possible that you
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 2:36 PM -0400 2004-06-17, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> > Virus scans are only one type of bounce that could cause someone to be
> > unsubscribed spuriously. For example, most mail servers have a maximum
> > message
>
J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 17 Jun 2004 14:36:39 -0400
> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In the absence of VERP this is far more difficult than it at first
> seems. The simple question becomes, even in the presence of a
> custo
I find I am being removed from mailman mailing lists left and right. I believe
the default values for the bounce removal should be reconsidered. It's
possible that you haven't had many users in my situation and so haven't really
had a chance to tune these parameters on the low end yet. But they cl
worm
appears and sends multiple messages in a row. Or a new spammer discovers a
list I'm on and sends multiple messages in a row to the list.
It's especially bad on low-volume lists where it's quite possible for spam or
Outlook worm messages to be the only messages for days.
Greg Sta
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
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
> >
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.
>
> 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
As an example of what I mean this is the notice that ezmlm sends.
It's really helpful too, it explains that the messages have been bouncing,
provides an example of the bounce so the user can make a guess *why* they're
bouncing, and provides a link to the archives (actually instructions on
retrie
"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
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
I forgot to wish all a happy Mailman Reminder Day yesterday.
Do these reminders not bother everyone else? Getting a few dozen of these once
a month used to really piss me off. I long since sent them to my spam folder
but just on principle whoever decided these should be enabled by default ought
t
13 matches
Mail list logo
