[Mailman-Users] Re-enabling users who exceed the bouncethreshold

[stephen at xemacs.org]

Mark Sapiro writes:

 > Then each subsequent mail found a 'cached' block and was itself
 > blocked and also updated the cache expiration. When I stopped
 > sending for over a week, the cached entry finally expired.

This would be a serious violation of cache semantics, though.  If the
bug occurred at the DNS level, AT&T would have been in a world of pain.

I agree with your conclusion, though.  Systematically banging on a
closed door is unlikely to get sympathy, no matter how wrongheaded the
closed-door policy is.  I would consider it a violation of the rights
of the system's owner (eg, a theft of service).  Of course the owner
has obligations to his customers, but a mailing list has no standing
to enforce them.

That's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I bet many of these systems'
maintainers feel just about that way.

Steve