[Mailman-Developers] Quandry 2: Alternate hosts and sendmail

[Scott]

hmm, this might make my life with confirmations more difficult...
(without addressing this, a patch for confirmations is on the way
shortly...) 


On Tue, May 12, 1998 at 10:45:50AM -0700, John Viega wrote:
| 
| On Tue, May 12, 1998 at 01:09:30PM -0400, Ken Manheimer wrote:
| 
| > So i guess my question is, is it worth trying a different approach
| > that will allow both the reply-to *and* the sender to be the -request
| > addr, just to accomodate the few mailers that don't respect reply-to?
| 
| > That would probably mean increasing the complexity of the mailcmd
| > script significantly, to detect requests that are actually bounces of
| > the confirmation-requests.
| 
| Two things.
| 
| 1) You only have to do this on confirmations.  Otherwise, people
| should be contacting the address on their own accord.  So just set up
| a -confirm addess, make it the sender and the reply-to, and then see
| if the subject has the token in it, which it should not for a bounce.

I've seen subject lines of bounced messages maintain the subject
line, prepending it with some tag or other.  Is there any guarantee
that scanning the subject will adequately determine what is and isn't
a bounce?


| 2) You could always have confirmations require an "extra web step"
| instead of responding to an email.

email confirmations are easier (since the user will not have to change
from a MUA to a webrowser to do anything) and therefore more
desirable. 


Any more ideas?  I'm prone to follow Barry's suggestion of the current
practice, but that may be biased by the fact that my work with adding
email confirmation of subscriptions and subscriptions to alternate
addresses works in the current framework...

Scott