[Mailman-Developers] Re: Bounce removal parameters default values

[Barry Warsaw]

On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 11:41, Greg Stark wrote:

> What I'm suggesting is that Mailman should *send* a message with known content
> itself, and only if that message bounces should it decide the address is
> invalid.

It seems difficult to test a negative (what? it doesn't bounce after 10
days?  I guess it'll never bounce).  I prefer Mailman's positive test
approach of sending several notices and requiring an explicit
confirmation for reinstatement.

> This is what ezmlm does. As much as I dislike ezmlm and qmail for other
> reasons and like Mailman for other reasons, this is one thing it gets right
> and Mailman gets wrong.
> 
> Deciding an address is invalid on the basis of messages posted to the list is
> bogus. Mailman can't know whether the message posted to the list bounced
> because the address was invalid, or merely because the content of that
> particular message triggered a content-based filter.

Bounce messages triggered by content-based filters are evil and must be
eradicated.  When SoBig.F came out, we had effective filters in place
within a day or so for the specific viruses themselves.  What absolutely
killed us was all the "helpful" bounces that the zillions of content
filters send when they block such a message.  And even if you think
/that's/ okay, not putting limits on those block messages is still evil.
-Barry