[Mailman-developers] Re: [meta-sig] mailman problems
Barry A. Warsaw
bwarsaw@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Barry A. Warsaw)
Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:20:58 -0400 (EDT)
>>>>> "KM" == Ken Manheimer <email@example.com> 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?