[Mailman-Users] New FAQ entry: broken autoresponders
S.W.Lay at ucles-red.cam.ac.uk
Mon Dec 10 12:16:13 CET 2001
>More simply, if the return path of a message is ever null ("<>"), it
>should be bounced from wrapper post.
Which is the same as what I went on to say I think...
Mailman (post 1.1) does this bounce detection - presumably by looking at
the envelope sender in the first instance. I think I'm arguing for
envelope senders of "postmaster[@domain]" and "mailer-daemon[@domain]" to
be treated as failure messages by bounce detection code too. People with
broken autoresponders would then get treated as if their address was
failing while they took a vacation. This appeals to me as the punishment
gets inflicted on the trouble maker, not the innocent list admin or (even
worse) the other subscribers.
Out of interest, where in the mailman code does this test get done?
Technical Manager, ITAL Unit
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate
More information about the Mailman-Users