[Mailman-Users] Bounce Handling Question

[Jeff Grossman]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:54:58 -0700, Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> wrote:
> Jeff Grossman wrote:
> 
>>I am running Mailman for two announcement only mailing list.  It is
>>running with no problems.  I wanted to send out an announcement to all
>>of my members without them getting a duplicate if they were on both
>>lists.  I created a new list called all yesterday.  I put the two lists
>>under the regular_include_lists setting.  It ran perfect.  But, I was
>>wondering, how does the bounce handling work for that list?  If a user
>>bounces a message when I send to the all list, do they get removed from
>>the other list they are actually on?  The all list does not have any
>>members associated with it.
> 
> 
> Hmmm... You raise an interesting issue. The short answer is No. The
> message is sent with envelope from all-bounces... and the bounce is
> returned there and will be processed only for members of the all list,
> i.e. no one.
> 
> So the issue is, is it worth enhancing bounce processing so that when a
> bounce is returned for a non-member of list X, we look at list X's
> regular_include_lists and score the bounce for any of those lists of
> which the bouncing address is a member?
> 
> Thoughts anyone?
> 
> It seems that in the situation above where there are (I think) two
> active lists that get their own posts, there would be enough regular
> bounces so that ignoring the additional bounces from the all list
> wouldn't be a problem, but there may be other situations where a list
> is used as an alternative umbrella where almost all the posts would be
> to the 'umbrella' and this would be a problem.
> 
> I added a note about this to the FAQ at <http://wiki.list.org/x/TIA9>.

I would like to see the bounce processing enhanced to handle this
situation.  If I remember correctly I think I saw where version 3 will be
able to have it set to handle bounces on a global basis instead of per
list?  If that is the case, it will be taken care of in version 3.  I am
not sure what the timetable is for version 3, but it might be worth just
waiting.  But, I would love to see it in version 2 if it is not that big of
a change.

Jeff