Peter Shute writes:
> But from the member's perspective they're being asked to change
> something they've possibly had for many years, for a reason they
> don't fully understand, and which they may not even believe.
That kind of thing happens to me all the time (I now live in Japan).
Nothing n
On 06/14/2014 05:04 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Conrad G T Yoder writes:
>
> > I have recently (last couple weeks?) started getting "4.3.0 mail
> > transport unavailable” bounces from roadrunner/TW addresses (the
> > rate-limiting issue is not currently rearing its head), and that is
> >
Conrad G T Yoder writes:
> I have recently (last couple weeks?) started getting "4.3.0 mail
> transport unavailable” bounces from roadrunner/TW addresses (the
> rate-limiting issue is not currently rearing its head), and that is
> causing Mailman (2.1.17) subscriptions to be disabled. Example
Sent from my iPad
> On 14 Jun 2014, at 10:42 pm, "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
>
> My personal opinion is that these traditional changes are expected and
> desired by mailing list subscribers, and that posting from "p=reject"
> domains is thereby a violation of the policy of the "p=reject" domain
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
> On 06/14/2014 09:22 AM, Conrad G T Yoder wrote:
> > I have recently (last couple weeks?) started getting "4.3.0 mail transport
> > unavailable” bounces from roadrunner/TW addresses (the rate-limiting issue
> > is not currently rearing its h
On 06/14/2014 09:22 AM, Conrad G T Yoder wrote:
> I have recently (last couple weeks?) started getting "4.3.0 mail transport
> unavailable” bounces from roadrunner/TW addresses (the rate-limiting issue is
> not currently rearing its head), and that is causing Mailman (2.1.17)
> subscriptions to
I have recently (last couple weeks?) started getting "4.3.0 mail transport
unavailable” bounces from roadrunner/TW addresses (the rate-limiting issue is
not currently rearing its head), and that is causing Mailman (2.1.17)
subscriptions to be disabled. Example error message in the “Bounce actio
Sparr writes:
> Modifying the messages bothers me (and a lot of other people, as
> indicated by the last dozen times similar conversations have been had,
> about changing Reply-To and From and Subject and ...) and should be
> the last resort.
Well, actually the point is that lists need to do
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
> It probably(?) can't hurt, but what's the point if each bounce represents an
> undelivered message? Isn't it better to modify the messages so they don't
> bounce?
I'd be more inclined to remove the posting privileges of someone whose
posts p
Peter Shute writes:
> It probably(?) can't hurt, but what's the point if each bounce
> represents an undelivered message?
Each bounce is one bounce that takes a perfectly innocent user one
bounce closer to getting disabled or unsubscribed. We need to do
something about this. The easiest thing
10 matches
Mail list logo
