On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 11:41, Greg Stark wrote:
What I'm suggesting is that Mailman should *send* a message with known content itself, and only if that message bounces should it decide the address is invalid.
It seems difficult to test a negative (what? it doesn't bounce after 10 days? I guess it'll never bounce). I prefer Mailman's positive test approach of sending several notices and requiring an explicit confirmation for reinstatement.
This is what ezmlm does. As much as I dislike ezmlm and qmail for other reasons and like Mailman for other reasons, this is one thing it gets right and Mailman gets wrong.
Deciding an address is invalid on the basis of messages posted to the list is bogus. Mailman can't know whether the message posted to the list bounced because the address was invalid, or merely because the content of that particular message triggered a content-based filter.
Bounce messages triggered by content-based filters are evil and must be eradicated. When SoBig.F came out, we had effective filters in place within a day or so for the specific viruses themselves. What absolutely killed us was all the "helpful" bounces that the zillions of content filters send when they block such a message. And even if you think /that's/ okay, not putting limits on those block messages is still evil. -Barry