[Mailman-Developers] Re: [Mailman-Users] Bounce Options

[Les Niles]

On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 02:18:45 -0500 barry@zope.com (Barry A. Warsaw) wrote:
>    B> Otherwise as you mentioned, the nomail list gets bigger and
>    B> bigger.  AFAIK, the only people that should be on the nomail
>    B> list are those who have signed up as such.
>
>Yes, I want to separate the concepts of disabled-by-choice and
>disabled-by-bounce.  Right now, you've got no idea.

And having the status clearly displayed to the user as "you were
disabled due to bounces" should eliminate a lot of queries to the
list admin.  

>I'm more concerned with the user who fills up his disk and doesn't
>notice it for a week because they're on vacation.  I'd like Mailman to
>be robust against this, and I think the average non-deliveries over a
>couple of weeks, with consignment to probation probably catches most
>of this use case.

For the lists I run, a long probation period would work best: the
overhead of re-subscribing, both for the user and the list admin,
would outweigh any disadvantage of having a pile of disabled
subscriptions laying around.  IOW, the probation period ought to be
configurable.  

On a related note, keeping timestamps for the last time the various
states changed -- not just disabled-by-bounce but also disabled-by-
choice, etc. -- would be useful.  It makes it possible to do things
like build a vacation-hold interface that allows users to disable
their subscriptions for a defined period.  

  -les