I have often wondered about the inefficiencies of having every list
arrive at member removal via independent bounce processing. I think
there is value in removal of a bounced member from ALL lists.
This seems particularly useful where we have adapted the script from
the Pasus mailing lists sit
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:54:58 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Jeff Grossman wrote:
>
>>I am running Mailman for two announcement only mailing list. It is
>>running with no problems. I wanted to send out an announcement to all
>>of my members without them getting a duplicate if they were on both
>>l
Jeff Grossman wrote:
>I am running Mailman for two announcement only mailing list. It is
>running with no problems. I wanted to send out an announcement to all
>of my members without them getting a duplicate if they were on both
>lists. I created a new list called all yesterday. I put the two
I am running Mailman for two announcement only mailing list. It is
running with no problems. I wanted to send out an announcement to all
of my members without them getting a duplicate if they were on both
lists. I created a new list called all yesterday. I put the two lists
under the regular_in
Hi all --
I'm trying to figure out why a particularly unreliable address has not
been disabled by Mailman yet. As near as I can tell (mostly by looking
at Exim's retry database), the mail server for this user's domain has
not been working since late October: either it answers and fails with
"452
