>List 1 is a monthly newsletter. An email is sent early in the month,
>every month, and no other traffic. If we want to allow subscribers to
>bounce once and only on the second bounce (because it was just a
>transitory issue) you need a second bounce, then at least for email from
>this list, you
>I think your approach is probably valid, but it adds complexity to the
>process. Complexity is not necessarily bad, but unnecessary complexity
>is bad because it makes things more fragile and bug prone and more
>difficult to maintain.
>
>So the bottom line question is whether this additional
On 6/16/19 7:25 PM, Aaryan Bhagat wrote:
>> However, I have been a Mailman developer for 15 years and am commenting
> >from that perspective.
> I fully understand and respect that and in no state to question that ever.
>
>
>> Even though Mailman 3 has a concept of a user and understands things
>>
On 6/16/19 4:25 PM, Aaryan Bhagat wrote:
>
> I wanted to make this method more robust so that users should not be
> subscribed even if their email is working fine, but if you say this, you say
> it by experience and I acknowledge that. I also mentioned my approach and
> implementation several
>However, I have been a Mailman developer for 15 years and am commenting
>from that perspective.
I fully understand and respect that and in no state to question that ever.
>Even though Mailman 3 has a concept of a user and understands things
>like an address may be receiving mail from more than
On 6/14/19 11:09 AM, Aaryan Bhagat wrote:
>> Mark would know more about this, but I wonder if there is a need to keep
>> the bounce score separate for each MailingList and keep the association
>> with a Member Object, as compared to an Address object
>
> Keeping it as separate has definitely its
