This is VERY interesting. I really appreciate this suggestion and may try it after confirming that disables occur at 9:00AM local time. Thanks for your insights!
Another thought I had would be to setup a list-owner web page for each emailing list that would run a grep script on the Mailman "Bounces Log" that would (1) show recent (last hour) bounce activity for (2) that specific list following a Mass Subscribe/Invite operation. I don't have access to the Mailman server itself, but if such a web page could give me a window into the Bounces Log for my specific list, that would be all I need. I just need to identify which addresses are bouncing.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 12/28/2010 at 2:54 PM Mark Sapiro wrote:
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Superticker2 (Mark) writes:
I appreciate your suggestion to set bounce_processing=1, bounce_score_threshold=0, but wouldn't this would cause "existing addresses" with scores at "2" to be removed immediately, which we
don't
want to do. We want the existing addresses to remain until their bounce score reaches 2.5.
I don't think it causes them to be removed immediately, but it would cause those with scores at 1.5 to get removed on the next bounce, so it's probably out for you.
Stephen is correct. Those with non-stale scores >= 1 will not be removed immediately, but they will be removed the next time cron/disabled runs (default 09:00 daily) if the threshold is not raised before that.
It seems pretty safe to do this. Sometime after cron/disabled runs reduce the threshold to <= 1, make sure that bounce_notify_owner_on_disable is Yes and do the mass subscribe. Since no list members are mailed in this process, they won't bounce. After allowing time for bounces to be returned and processed (bounces are queued in Mailman and only processed at 15 minute intervals), raise the threshold to the original value.
Note however that this will only work for mass subscribes. For invitations, the returned bounces will be for addresses which aren't list members and these are always ignored.
Note that the final decision is Marks (v2.x) or Barry's (v3)q, of course. But I tend to think they'll agree with me.
FWIW, I do agree.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan