On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 10:20, Greg Stark wrote:
"John A. Martin" jam@jamux.com writes:
If any mail is rejected or bounced (ie, initially accepted for delivery but later a DSN is returned indicating a delivery failure) then that is a delivery failure. If you do not like what your receiving mail systems reject or bounce that is not a Mailman problem.
I like very much that the mail systems reject virus and worm mails. I don't like that mailman extrapolates from that failure to assuming the mailbox is broken and it should unsubscribe it. That's bogus.
Mailman should not take any such drastic action purely on the basis of a bounce from a message with content it didn't control. It has no idea *why* the message bounced and no idea whether it means future messages will bounce or not.
I've been swamped, but I'll just quickly chime in that we've seen lots of unintentional unsubs since moving python-list over to Mailman 2.1.3. Unintentional means that the person's mailbox is still valid, and they still want to be on the list, but they got disabled without understanding why. I consider it important to fix this for 2.1.4, although I haven't decided how yet. One thing will be to include a bounce example with re-enable notifications. A second thing may be to send probes when the bounce threshold has been reached, but I need to think more about the exact machinery for that and whether that's appropriate for a patch release or not.
-Barry