[Mailman-Developers] why treat action: delayed in DSN as an unrecognized bounce?

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Sun, 2004-07-04 at 23:39 +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> 
> 	I'm not sure that there is anything more we can do with them. 

Indeed.  It is only a warning of non-delivery.  The bounce is the
important one.

> Hence the suggestion not to generate them, if you don't want them. 

If that is doable, I agree, but to your point below...

> Of course, most MTAs will only generate one additional warning beyond 
> the bounce itself, so this should have relatively minimal impact if 
> you don't ignore them.

You would think but if one is generated for every message for every
recipient that does not take delivery within (for example) 4 hours, it
does get quite annoying.

>   If it does have an impact, the other option 
> would be to change the bounce process handling so that you increase 
> the required score by the number of warnings that might be generated, 
> and the impact of warnings should be eliminated.

But the issue is not really in thresholds and unsubscriptions and so
forth but simply that the list manager's mailbox gets littered with
these "unrecognized bounce" messages.  Simply having MM ignore them
would be sufficient methinks.

> 	That said, for an MTA which is shared amongst some mailing lists 
> and some real users, it might be better to configure Mailman to 
> ignore warnings than to depend on the MTA not to generate them.

Right.  And it seems that a simple "continue" rather than "return Stop"
if action == 'delayed' should be the ticket -- not being an MM hacker at
the moment anyway.  :-)

b.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/attachments/20040704/5e99671e/attachment.bin