[Mailman-Developers] Re: way to minimize IO load with MTA supported VERP

[J C Lawrence]

On Fri,  7 Dec 2001 00:18:57 -0500 (EST) 
bob  <bob@nleaudio.com> wrote:

>>> [*] VERP helps with knowing exactly which address on which list
>>> is bouncing, but I don't think it helps much with knowing the
>>> severity of the bounce.

>> It doesn't.  I'm strongly tempted to treat all bounces as hard,
>> unless we can cheaply _and_ conclusively determine that they are
>> soft.

> I don't think it would be easily done, and I would venture to say
> it's not worth the time investment trying to code.  

I'm not going to argue either way with the man who writes the
patch.  His choice.  His call.

> I think time is the key to separating hard vs soft.  

I'd tend to cutting on the line of RFC compliance.  If its an RFC
compliant bounce, and its soft...

> Bounces don't seem to take up much resources, so what's the big
> deal if we tolerate them over a little longer period of time?

This depends on the churn rate on your list, and the
posting/bounce-detection rate.  Larger lists tend to have
(numerically larger churn rates, and can become brutally painful
quickly.  At one point I had a 140K list with ~35% bad addresses
(single opt-in silliness I inherited).  It was *NOT* fun for a
while.

-- 
J C Lawrence                
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
claw@kanga.nu               He lived as a devil, eh?		  
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.