Stale list bounce test (fwd)
Julian H. Stacey
jhs at berklix.com
Sun Sep 27 12:42:18 UTC 2015
Cc: ctm-users at freebsd.org
David Wolfskill wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:48:44AM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > Hi postmaster at freebsd.org,
> > cc ctm-users at freebsd.org
> > This is 4th wave of noise devnull keeps spamming us with.
> > Today another 10 "apologies" to delete, one for each CTM feed.
> > A single bounce test finds bad delivery addresses. =20
> > Can you please stop whoever ?
> > ....
> No, we cannot.
> As stated, it was an attempt to identify "subscribers" that were not
> receiving email via the list -- and in the process, also find out if the
> lists in question were actually being used: It is not immediately
> obvious that there is much call for CTM updates to FreeBSD 8,x, for
(& BTW I've said before to Stephen: scrap src-4 any time you want),
But why so Many tests ?!
A single bounce test suffices on rarely broadcast lists (regardless
whether freebsd or other) to detect stale failing addresses. eg in
case of freebsd perhaps on src-[4-8], not src-9 10 src-cur ports svn.
Exceptionaly a 2nd test if error reports missed on 1st test. But so many ?!
Repeat broadcasts don't detect black hole silent addresses, Nor recipients
who silently apply ctms, (perhaps via procmail, other, or manually.
How does a barrage of repeats detect active willing recipients ?
Do you have some magic mechanism it feeds back to ? How does it work ?
Julian Stacey, BSD Linux Unix C Sys Eng Consultant Munich http://berklix.com
Reply after previous text, like a play - Not before, which loses context.
Indent previous text with "> " Insert new lines before 80 chars.
Send plain text, Not quoted-printable, Not HTML, Not ms.doc, Not base64.
More information about the ctm-users