On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Jon Kyme wrote:
> Thank you - Suresh Ramasubramanian
> >> still if our list wasn't polluted with loads of unroutable addresses
> ('AS
> >> ABOVE' and 'a@???' you know the kind of thing).
>
> >Then your list ISNT opt-in. You might want to see
> >http://www.mail-abuse.org/rbl/manage.html a time or two (and more to the
> >point, rub your marketing guy's nose in it a time or two)
>
> FYI - we run a mailing list for a busy website with ca. 150k registered use=
> rs. Most of those users have signed up for a regular newletter (i.e. opted =
> in).
Presumably, you have a form where a user is supposed to enter their
email address. Also, presumably, you take their word as to what their
email address is, as opposed to sending (or trying to send in the event
of syntactic junk) a single message inviting the user to confirm that A.
It was really them that entered their email address there, and not some
person trying to list bomb them, and B. They really do want to be on
your list and C. Implied, if they got your single message, they entered
their email address correctly.
This has the side affect that invalid addresses never get added to the
main list, becuase no one can receive the initial message to confirm the
subscription.
See below for an ad-hoc fix..
> The 'specification' for the [laughs] system was produced by the client and
> a firm of 'web designers' [spits] and required that copies of the newslette=
> r
> also be sent to 2ndary addresses (if supplied) ie home and work (they ass-u=
> med but that's the kind of thing that gets you 'AS ABOVE'). They didn't sp=
> ecify validation for the 2ndary addresses - so, unsurprisingly, the people =
> coding the site registration didn't put any validation on these addresses -=
> "not in the spec.". If you can see the glaring error
> here - good for you.
>
> Although things have improved somewhat recently there are political and con=
> tractual complications - so in spite of my complaints - the list is unlikel=
> y to be completely 'fixed'... "no more effort required" "not in the spec" e=
> tc...
>
> I am familiar with the guidelines set out at mail-abuse.org but it's not in=
> my power to do anything about it.
>
> I could take the moral high-ground and say that since a fraction of a % of =
> of the list doesn't validate then the list is itself BAD and throw some ki=
> nd of hissy-fit. I'm not sufficiently bothered by the situation to make mys=
> elf look like that kind of f*ckwit.
You could also write a script to loop over the entire list, and run exim
-bt against every address, and only keep addresses that verify This
would at least throw out the completely invalid junk.
>
> It's a Real-World-Problem (tm). Welcome to it.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> all the best to you and yours ...
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get your own FREE local e-mail address at http://www.merseymail.com/
>
> --
>
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
>
--
