The problem, if you haven't already been told, is that AOL actually has
a limit on the number of messages a user can get before it starts bouncing
things back. Most other sites do not have such limits.
Also, AOL sends back a message for each message and user that goes to AOL.
If I bounced 8 addresses at any other site for 10 messages, I would get
back 10 errors, not 80. AOL is accepting the mail as valid, then splitting
it out, and failing on each delivery, not the total package. I haven't seen
any other site broken in that way.
At least AOL did something right in the last year and moved the number
from 100 to 550. Most, not all, of the problems that I have seen from AOL went
away when they did that. There are still some, but AOL is no longer in the
top 5 of problem sites for me. (psi.net sites, att.com sites, slow sites
in europe via x400). But then I only currently have 2 aol members, since
others got dropped, out of over 15K direct subscribers to on my various lists.
Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer writes:
>Edward Branley wrote:
>>> I did read the rest of your message and still fail to see why a no-toleran
>>> bounce policy wouldn't solve your problem.
>>I already have a no-tolerance policy in place. The problem is that AOL boun
>>messages in such a volume that the damage is already done by the time I drop
>>the user. If 10 messages go out tomorrow to 3 AOL users who either have ful
>>mailboxes or don't exist any more (30-day wonders), that means 30 bounce
>>messages hit my system (and that of my mailhost's sysadmin) *before* my
>>zero-tolerance policy kicks in. Last Saturday, that situation happened
>>with 8 AOL users, making for close to 80 messages. Making sense now?
>No. If you had 8 .edu addresses with full mailboxes, that would still have
>given you 80 bounces, right? Or 8 .mil addresses, or 1 .mil, 2 .gov, 1 .com
>& 4 .oz? Or does the math work differently?
> Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer