I'll have a look on this subject, and see what it takes to add it to the Bounce mailet.
August vacations allowing :-) Vincenzo > -----Original Message----- > From: Serge Knystautas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: giovedi 31 luglio 2003 15.26 > To: James Developers List > Subject: Re: More info from bounces > > > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > >>The motivation for this is to recognize soft bounces (mailbox full, mail > >>servers down) from hard bounces > > > > Servers should probably not be sending a bounce, or at least a > non-RFC 1894 > > bounce, for a soft error. VERP seems to be somewhat predicated > upon bounces > > being permanent, at least for that message. To work around the > fact that > > the errors may relate to a transient mailbox error, it seems that VERP > > mailers will be tolerant of a configured number of bounces, and > will then > > send an "warning message" to inform the user. If the warning > bounces, the > > user is disconnected from the list. That seems to describe the behavior > > I've seen from ezmlm, but Brian (or perhaps some of our > members) would know > > better. > > Here's an update on my data, and actually makes me think we need to > hurry up and add this. :) > > # of bounces: 1374 > # of James bounces: 541 > # of non-James bounces: 833 > # of non-James bounces w/RFC 1894: 514 > % of non-James bounces w/RFC 1894: 61.7% > > I've only glanced at the spec so don't really know how much work it > would take, but it seems this is much more widely adopted than I had > thought. > > -- > Serge Knystautas > President > Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com > p. 301.656.5501 > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
