--On 7 August 2006 15:08:56 -0400 James Ralston
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Choices:
>
> [X] Count the bounce against the threshold.
> [ ] Forward the bounce to the list owner.
> [ ] Ignore the bounce.
>
> Comments?
>
The default should NOT be to count the bounce
--On 7 August 2006 15:28:46 -0400 "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.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> I
--On 7 August 2006 20:44:07 -0500 Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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 Th
--On 7 August 2006 20:35:06 -0500 Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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
At 10:46 AM +0100 2006-08-08, Ian Eiloart quoted "Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> If people bounce a message every day for a couple weeks, I consider their
>> ISP broken enough to warrant unsubscription.
>
> In my case, it wasn't my ISP, or my server that was at fault. It was th
At 10:55 AM +0100 2006-08-08, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>> The problem is determining, in a programmatic and systematic way,
>> what really is a content-related bounce and what might mistakenly
>> appear to be a content-related bounce, and the converse.
>
> No, that isn't the problem. The RFC says ho
At 10:56 AM +0100 2006-08-08, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>> 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 don't assign
>> the appropriate extended response codes in accordance with the RFCs,
>> then the likelihood is that w
--On 8 August 2006 05:00:17 -0500 Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> At 10:46 AM +0100 2006-08-08, Ian Eiloart quoted "Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> If people bounce a message every day for a couple weeks, I consider
>>> their ISP broken enough to warrant unsubscr
--On 8 August 2006 05:10:41 -0500 Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Or some other kind of bounce.
>
>>This is the status quo. People may already be incorrectly
>>unsubscribed. This is a real problem when it occurs. It can happen
>> because a server refuses messages with illeg
--On 8 August 2006 05:13:37 -0500 Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> At 10:56 AM +0100 2006-08-08, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
>>> 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 don't assign
>>> the appropriate ex
--On 8 August 2006 05:10:41 -0500 Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> When it comes to parsing the actual reasons behind a message
> bouncing, the RFC is not sufficient. Indeed, I'm not convinced that
> it's even necessary. And you'd have to be specific which RFC you're
> talking abou
Bob,
This is very annoying.
--On 8 August 2006 05:47:01 -0400 Bob Puff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>
> ** IMPORTANT! Please Read! **
> In an effort to reduce spam, a message filtering service called TMDA has
> been implemented on this mailbox.
>
> The purpose of this me
I've deliberately not quoted the original message, but Brad is 100% on the
money in his posts. I see a bunch of bounces that one of my highly-customized
mailman lists get. At one point, I tried keeping up with just the parsing of
the bounce messages, but soon gave up. There are too many strange
--On Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:14 PM -0400 emf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Thanks so much for the docking-boxes hookup.
>
> ~ethan
fyi...some drag and drop usability articles:
Drag and Drop Controls
By Free Usability Advice.
"Question: Are there any usability issues with using drag and drop
c
--On 8 August 2006 11:14:22 -0400 Bob Puff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've deliberately not quoted the original message, but Brad is 100% on the
> money in his posts. I see a bunch of bounces that one of my
> highly-customized mailman lists get. At one point, I tried keeping up
> with just
At 4:44 PM +0100 2006-08-08, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> But, the idea is NOT to try to parse bounce *messages*, it's to parse
> bounce *codes*.
Here's the deal.
You think it's going to be trivially easy to add this new feature,
and to parse the codes correctly, with the correct outcome, all you
ha
16 matches
Mail list logo
