What "threshold"? The disabled_warning_interval?
Yes, exactly. I apologise for being informal.
Incrementing the warning counter should always happen if the mail is successfully sent.
Yes, I meant that only, I apologise for not explaining correctly.
I don't know offhand how any of the above operations could fail, and most likely to fail is sending mail, which is handled by the virgin, outgoing, and retry queues, not by the logic you're working on here. Still, perhaps some of the operations should be conditional on success.
I also realize that sending mail is the
critical connection of this whole flow and most of the operations will work on certain conditionals, of course, I just showed a rough outline of the process. As for when each and individual operation will be executed depending/not-depending upon the success/failure of the previous one I am currently working on that.
Also, you need to think about what happens if the warning fails for some address. Probably you just treat that as equivalent to a bounce in most cases, but what happens if it's a "no such address"? Is that already handled?
Yes, that is correct, as of now, if bounces are received for
warning_messages then they will be treated normally as it would have been done for other emails.
For the problem, you mentioned regarding
no such address, it was something which occurred to me earlier but I had not pondered upon it so much. Let me clearly explain the problem.
wrong/nullifiedfor some reasons.
bounce_you_are_disabled_warningsno more warnings will be sent by Mailman.
What other implementation for this type of behaviour can be implemented? Some pointers are required on this.