[Mailman-Developers] Suggestions about Mailman bounce processing

[Superticker2 (Mark)]

This is VERY interesting.  I really appreciate this suggestion and may try
it after confirming that disables occur at 9:00AM local time.  Thanks for
your insights!

Another thought I had would be to setup a list-owner web page for each
emailing list that would run a grep script on the Mailman "Bounces Log"
that would (1) show recent (last hour) bounce activity for (2) that
specific list following a Mass Subscribe/Invite operation.  I don't have
access to the Mailman server itself, but if such a web page could give me a
window into the Bounces Log for my specific list, that would be all I need.
 I just need to identify which addresses are bouncing.


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 12/28/2010 at 2:54 PM Mark Sapiro wrote:

>Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>
>>Superticker2 (Mark) writes:
>>
>> > I appreciate your suggestion to set bounce_processing=1,
>> > bounce_score_threshold=0, but wouldn't this would cause "existing
>> > addresses" with scores at "2" to be removed immediately, which we
don't
>> > want to do.  We want the existing addresses to remain until their
>bounce
>> > score reaches 2.5.
>>
>>I don't think it causes them to be removed immediately, but it would
>>cause those with scores at 1.5 to get removed on the next bounce, so
>>it's probably out for you.
>
>
>Stephen is correct. Those with non-stale scores >= 1 will not be
>removed immediately, but they will be removed the next time
>cron/disabled runs (default 09:00 daily) if the threshold is not
>raised before that.
>
>It seems pretty safe to do this. Sometime after cron/disabled runs
>reduce the threshold to <= 1, make sure that
>bounce_notify_owner_on_disable is Yes and do the mass subscribe. Since
>no list members are mailed in this process, they won't bounce. After
>allowing time for bounces to be returned and processed (bounces are
>queued in Mailman and only processed at 15 minute intervals), raise
>the threshold to the original value.
>
>Note however that this will only work for mass subscribes. For
>invitations, the returned bounces will be for addresses which aren't
>list members and these are always ignored.
>
>
>>Note that the final decision is Marks (v2.x) or Barry's (v3)q, of
>>course.  But I tend to think they'll agree with me.
>
>
>FWIW, I do agree.
>
>-- 
>Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net>        The highway is for gamblers,
>San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan