[Mailman-Developers] why treat action: delayed in DSN as an unrecognized bounce?

[Brad Knowles]

At 5:08 PM -0400 2004-07-04, Brian J. Murrell wrote:

>  So will version 3 be the next release?  i.e. nothing until then?  Does
>  v.3 address this issue at all or is it pretty much the same in 3?

	I understand that version 3 is going to be a pretty big change, 
although I don't know if it's going to be a complete re-write.  There 
may or may not be a 2.1.6 released before version 3 arrives, but I 
wouldn't want to take any bets either way.

>  The next question is, what should MM do with delivery warnings?  Is
>  there any merit to doing anything but ignore them silently?

	I'm not sure that there is anything more we can do with them. 
Hence the suggestion not to generate them, if you don't want them. 
Of course, most MTAs will only generate one additional warning beyond 
the bounce itself, so this should have relatively minimal impact if 
you don't ignore them.  If it does have an impact, the other option 
would be to change the bounce process handling so that you increase 
the required score by the number of warnings that might be generated, 
and the impact of warnings should be eliminated.

	That said, for an MTA which is shared amongst some mailing lists 
and some real users, it might be better to configure Mailman to 
ignore warnings than to depend on the MTA not to generate them.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
     -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

   SAGE member since 1995.  See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.