At 5:36 PM -0400 2006-07-28, James Ralston wrote:
> I admit that this algorithm isn't perfect. But I think it's better
> than what Mailman does currently, which is to ignore the status field
> entirely.
Unfortunately, there are a whole host of seriously broken MTAs out
there, and seriously broken configurations of otherwise good MTAs,
and many sites return totally bogus status codes.
If everyone read and understood the RFCs half as well as you have
done, then there wouldn't be any problem. But that's not what
happens. In many cases, site admins will blindly copy stuff from
somewhere else that was horribly broken to begin with and won't
understand what's wrong with it before they do the cut-n-paste
operation.
That said, I would not be opposed to seeing more data on this
subject, and possibly giving site admins or list admins an option
they can enable that would allow Mailman to pay attention to the
status codes.
Once that's out there, we could let various people try it out and see
how it works in the field, and I would be a very happy guy if I were
to be proven wrong in this case.
--
Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755
Founding Individual Sponsor of LOPSA. See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.
_______________________________________________
Mailman-Developers mailing list
Mailman-Developers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
Searchable Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org
Security Policy:
http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
