Victor Duchovni:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 07:26:59PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > More sensibly, it seems safe to skip the RESET_OWNER_ATTR() operation.
> > That code is a remnant of a very early attempt to attribute bounces
> > very accurately, and may be creating more problems than it solves.
>
> I think this idea has been considered before. I (still) think this
> makes sense. A more interesting question is what to do with:
>
> toplist-owner: foo
> toplist: midlist1, midlist2
> midlist1-owner: bar
> midlist1: a, b, c, d, e
> midlist2-owner: baz
> midlist2: x, y, z, w, t
>
> If mail delivery to "x" fails for a message addressed to "toplist", should
> the bounce notice go to "foo" or "baz". The latter potentially involvles
> forking off lots of copies of the message, one for each sub-list, so
> there is some incentive to leave the "owner" alone, if one is already set.
RESET_OWNER_ATTR() is more destructive - it will remove the owner
attribute when a sub-alias has no owner-alias. This is really old
code and I don't remember the fine details of what led me to this
some 12 years ago. Obviously this has escaped testing.
Wietse
