[Mailman-Developers] Re: way to minimize IO load with MTA supported VERP
J C Lawrence
claw@kanga.nu
Thu, 06 Dec 2001 21:47:24 -0800
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.