[rescue] Re: [geeks] ADMINISTRIVIA: Changes to mail delivery policies

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 03:21:57 (-0600), Bill Bradford wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [rescue] Re: [geeks] ADMINISTRIVIA: Changes to mail   delivery policies
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 04:12:28AM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > 
> > If that's what you're worried about then either you've adjusted the
> > wrong parameter, or I've assumed you've adjusted the wrong parameter.
> 
> No, I'm talking about what I have to deal with that *caused* me to adjust
> things from the default of four days.  Its a "vicious cycle" thing with
> people and the damn broken Exchange mail servers.  

If you did what I think you did then it will make no difference to you
-- it will only hurt those people who must use less than perfect
Internet connections.  Such a broken MX will accept your deliveries
immediately and spew crap back at you regardless.

Please reconsider and reset maximal_queue_lifetime (the maximum queue
retry timeout) to 5 or even 7 days if indeed you've lowered it.

> The problem is really the MTAs on the other end that take the mail, but then
> have problems delivering it to the end user (*cough* exchange *cough), but
> keep spamming me with DSNs while they try to do it.

Exactly -- which is why adjusting your maximal_queue_lifetime won't do
you any good and can only "harm" others (cause them to lose e-mail they
would otherwise receive).

You should not be worried about deferred items in your local queue.

>  Mailman doesent 
> recognize the DSNs, only bounces.  I end up having to see the DSNs, then
> unsubscribe the person before my end keeps sending mail, which will just
> time out and not be delivered anyway.

That would be a problem, I agree, and I sympathise.  All the BOFH power
to you!

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <gwoods at acm.org>;  <g.a.woods at ieee.org>;  <woods at robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods at planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods at weird.com>