I could add a counter point for each of your statements, but neither of
us want to get into that. The bottom line, is that majordomo does not
have the capability, as currently written, to send a copy of a bounced
message back to the original sender. If you would like to hack some
perl code and provide those of us that would like to implement such a
feature with the patch, I am sure we would all be delighted.
In the mean time, I suggest that the humans responsible for approving
bounced messages pay closer attention to their lists, and the members
posting to a list to be more aware of which account they are subscribed
from.
Dan Liston
"Michael K. Heney" wrote:
>
> I have to disagree with your disagreeing, Dan. There may be good reasons
> in general for not setting up a list to return bounce messages to the
> sender, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an option. The fact
> that you wouldn't like such an option or wouldn't find it useful doesn't
> mean that someone else might have a different situation or set of
> preferences as far as what they're willing to deal with.
>
> I manage a number of small, closed lists, and the *only* bounces I get are
> from legitimate members mailing from non-listed mail accounts. It would
> be much more convenient for my application if the sender knew their post
> didn't go through as close to immediately as possible, so they could
> re-send from an approved account. I have
>
> restrict-post: folks folks.alias
>
> and I'll add their "alias" e-mail addresses to allow them to post without
> recieving multiple copies - but until then, their message may sit in limbo
> until I check the "bounce" account. And they won't know it - they'll
> thgink their message wnet through ok, even though it doesn't appear in
> their in-box.
>
> I also am not sold on the "helping spammers" argument. A spammer tries to
> send to one of my lists (which in reality doesn't happen), and gets a
> bounce notification. How does that make their life easier? They either
> actually remove my list address from their spam list, in which case
> they're doing extra work *and* I'm off their list, or they either ignore
> it or take it as validation that the address works, which effectively
> doesn't differ from no response at all - I stay on their spam list either
> way.
>
> So, yes, it would be nice to be able to send bounce messages back to the
> sender. I'll accept that it shouldn't be the default configuration; but
> when it comes down to it, you shold be able to configure your lists in a
> manner that best serves your needs, and I should be able to configure mine
> to best serve my needs.
>
> Sendmail tells you that promiscuous relaying is a bad idea. But the
> option to use it is available.
>
> Linux tells you that allowing telnet logins as root is a bad idea. But
> the option to do that is available.
>
> Why can't majordomo tell me that sending bounce messages back to the
> sender isn't recommended, and why - but make the option available?
>
> On Sat, 20 May 2000, Dan Liston wrote:
>
> > I have to disagree with you there Mike. It would not be nice to have.
> > Spammers have always infested the internet, but why make it easier for
> > them by letting them know they did not reach their intended audience.
> >
> > As a list owner, moderator, and majordomo administrator, I would much
> > rather be the only one to suffer the hit of the spam than have it get
> > into the entire list population.
> >
> > Returning non-member bounces automatically rather than letting the owner
> > deal with the message is just begging for trouble. Leaving the bounce
> > mechanism as-is, allows non-member submissions to be scanned and dealt
> > with by humans for humans.
> >
> > Dan Liston
> >
> > mjn wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there any way to get non-member submissions to bounce to the person who
> > > attempted to post the message (and not just the owner of the list)? I am
> > > not sure if it is possible but it'd be nice if it were...
> >
References:
|
|
