woods@??? (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> (I don't remember, did you say how you currently inject messages for
> relay and distribution?)
qmail-inject *sigh*...
> Are you using a separate mail relay machine to process the outgoing
> mailing list distribution now?
Thanks to VERP, this wouldn't help much. No, I'm sending mail
directly. No load problems so far (but message delivery only happens
at a rate of 20 or 30 remote deliveries per second, so that's not
totally surprising).
>> It allows us to unsubscribe bouncing and
>> autoreplying addresses immediately, thus saving bandwidth.
>
> Do the bounces you seen normally happen as new messages from the remote
> MTA, or do you more frequently see SMTP-level refusals, or is there some
> mix of both?
We have got a lot of subscribers from German free mail services which
generate very non-standard bounce messages (completely localized).
Thanks to the Lotus Notes etc. subscribers, some of the bounce
messages are not even proper SMTP bounces (because they use the sender
address in the header, and not in the envelope).
>> In
>> addition, network bandwidth is cheap, compared to the time required to
>> manually process bounce messages, or even to write complaints about
>> bounces without *any* information.
>
> _Your_ network bandwidth may be cheap....
>
> But can your own costs and savings justify the costs to others? ;-)
Well, the people we care about (our local admins and end users) have
cheap network connectivity as well (at no cost, in fact). We permit
external subscribers only because subscription filtering would be too
much work for us. We don't care about the bandwidth requirements for
those free riders. ;-)
--
Florian Weimer Weimer@???
University of Stuttgart http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/
RUS-CERT +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898
