[Mailman-developers] Re: [meta-sig] mailman problems

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "KM" == Ken Manheimer <klm@cnri.reston.va.us> writes:

    KM> While i'm inclined to agree about the list-of-known-domains
    KM> check being too maintenance intensive, i do see a reason to
    KM> have the check in the first place.  The benefit comes into
    KM> play when the web interface is in play - the user is there,
    KM> and can get definite feedback about faulty addresses.  Without
    KM> it, they only see address failures as the absence of any
    KM> subscription confirmation - a decidedly vague and uncertain
    KM> kind of feedback.

Couldn't we do the same sort of DNS lookup when the form is submitted?

-Barry