Re: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Re: way to minimize IO load with MTA supported VERP
[*] VERP helps with knowing exactly which address on which list is bouncing, but I don't think it helps much with knowing the severity of the bounce.
It doesn't. I'm strongly tempted to treat all bounces as hard, unless we can cheaply _and_ conclusively determine that they are soft.
I don't think it would be easily done, and I would venture to say it's not worth the time investment trying to code. I think time is the key to separating hard vs soft. Bounces don't seem to take up much resources, so what's the big deal if we tolerate them over a little longer period of time?
Bob
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:18:57 -0500 (EST) bob <bob@nleaudio.com> wrote:
[*] VERP helps with knowing exactly which address on which list is bouncing, but I don't think it helps much with knowing the severity of the bounce.
It doesn't. I'm strongly tempted to treat all bounces as hard, unless we can cheaply _and_ conclusively determine that they are soft.
I don't think it would be easily done, and I would venture to say it's not worth the time investment trying to code.
I'm not going to argue either way with the man who writes the patch. His choice. His call.
I think time is the key to separating hard vs soft.
I'd tend to cutting on the line of RFC compliance. If its an RFC compliant bounce, and its soft...
Bounces don't seem to take up much resources, so what's the big deal if we tolerate them over a little longer period of time?
This depends on the churn rate on your list, and the posting/bounce-detection rate. Larger lists tend to have (numerically larger churn rates, and can become brutally painful quickly. At one point I had a 140K list with ~35% bad addresses (single opt-in silliness I inherited). It was *NOT* fun for a while.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
participants (2)
-
bob＠nleaudio.com -
J C Lawrence