At 3:08 PM -0400 2006-08-07, James Ralston wrote:
> Perhaps, but we cannot solve this problem, and there's a fine line
> between working around stupidity and coddling it.
Right, but if we can't fix the problem of the multitude of broken
MTAs out there, and the fact that most of them probably d
At 4:26 PM -0400 2006-08-07, James Ralston wrote:
> As a list owner, you shouldn't need to care. Mailman should just Do
> The Right Thing. My argument is that ignoring content-related bounces
> is the Right Thing.
The problem is determining, in a programmatic and systematic way,
what really
On 2006-08-07 at 15:28-04 Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Ralston wrote:
>
> > Choices:
> >
> > [X] Count the bounce against the threshold.
> > [ ] Forward the bounce to the list owner.
> > [ ] Ignore the bounce.
>
> I thought there already was a "Forward bo
James Ralston wrote:
> Choices:
>
> [X] Count the bounce against the threshold.
> [ ] Forward the bounce to the list owner.
> [ ] Ignore the bounce.
>
> Comments?
I thought there already was a "Forward bounces to admin" setting. If not,
there should be (and
derfa
On 2006-08-07 at 15:08-04 James Ralston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a compromise, I suggest adding this feature as a bounce
> processing tunable; for example, "content bounce handling":
Upon reflection, this problem is yet another instance of Mailman's
fundamental problem with bounce processin
On 2006-07-28 at 21:31-05 Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. In many cases,
> site admins will blindly
