[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: MailMan VERP (Was: nethack popularity contest - number_pad?)



On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:30:59PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Steve C. Lamb wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 07:18:58PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > > of course we should, if upstream's default is broken.  (Like sending
> > > out monthly reminders for mailman lists, which I've turned off.)
> > 
> >     This is a *good thing* and should be left enabled.
> 
> A better thing would be for the list to send out one of its normal
> messages as VERP. This way no one gets a goddess-awfull monthly
> reminder,and the list gets the benefit of batch deliveriers most of the
> time, and the occasional culling of non-functional email addresses.

Such as ezmlm+qmail, which sends out every message as a VERP-style. Oddly
enough, my mailing lists don't actually seem to have a significant problem
with delivery times, even when non-batched. And I definitely have multiple
users in the same domains that could be batched.

Oddly enough, those cases tend to be the ones where I *most* want
VERP-style envelopes, because they're ISPs or Webmail services which have
lots of users (thus, a good chance of multiple users in the domain), but
also lots of churn (how many people forget their Hotmail account, and let
it expire?)

Though I could see something like "send batched normally, send VERP style
on the first list email every day/week/month". Of course, I find it
quite convenient to tell people (who often have no clue what address is
subscribed) to look at the headers to find out, since it's encoded there.

In fact, that probably saves me more pain than the auto-unsubscribe does.
-- 
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter                                        : :' :
                                                                     `. `'
				                                       `-

Attachment: pgp7md9g7_4sJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: