[Mailman-Developers] suggested improvement for Mailman's bounce processing

[Brad Knowles]

At 10:56 AM +0100 2006-08-08, Ian Eiloart wrote:

>>  Right, but if we can't fix the problem of the multitude of broken
>>  MTAs out there, and the fact that most of them probably don't assign
>>  the appropriate extended response codes in accordance with the RFCs,
>>  then the likelihood is that we are going to be lead to make the wrong
>>  guesses based on the response we get.
>
>  We already do that. This is the problem that we're trying to solve, not a
>  new problem introduced by the proposal!

No, that's precisely the problem -- the proposal does cause new 
problems that have to be dealt with.

Because of all the broken MTAs out there, I believe that the 
probability is high that we will be unable to guess correctly what 
type of bounce we have for a statistically significant subsection of 
the population, and that the potential consequences of either a false 
negative or a false positive in this case are higher than taking the 
K.I.S.S. approach and not making any attempt to guess what type of 
bounce we're dealing with.


So, feel free to go ahead and make this change and to put this entire 
issue to rest, at least for the data you've collected from your site.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

     -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
     Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

  Founding Individual Sponsor of LOPSA.  See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.