Re. Stale list bounce test (fwd)

[Julian H. Stacey]

Hi postmaster at freebsd.org

Quoting. https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/ctm-users/2015-September/000463.html
> =========
> Julian H. Stacey jhs at berklix.com
> Sun Sep 27 12:42:18 UTC 2015
> 
>     Previous message (by thread): Stale list bounce test (fwd)
>     Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> 
> restored
> 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
> > example.
> 
> OK,
> (& 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 ?

Postmaster at freebsd.org,

You've auto emitted noise for another year 

> Subject: Stale list bounce test
> From: devnull at freebsd.org
> To: ctm-svn-cur-fast at freebsd.org
> Sender: owner-ctm-svn-cur-fast at freebsd.org
> 
> Our aplologies for the inconvenience.  We are testing legacy mailing lists
> for bouncing subscribers.
> 
> You are subscribed to the ctm-svn-cur-fast at freebsd.org list.
> _______________________________________________
> ctm-svn-cur-fast at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/ctm-svn-cur-fast
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "ctm-svn-cur-fast-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> --------------

Please either:
- Stop mis-spelt 'aplologies'
- Or Insert a reason you still burden CTM lists with noise, but not
  other lists - (or a cynic might wonder if to annoy & deter from CTM).
- Or append something like:
	"You are safe to add a [.procmailrc] to auto discard this."
  eg
	http://www.berklix.com/~jhs/dots/.procmailrc_lists
  To Confirm to human recipients, you dont want us to keep checking junk.

SVN won't always be better than CTM :
  When net connectivity is intermittent or expensive, push technologies
  such as Ctm deltas could, probably should be cheaper in data
  (money/meg) & quicker in connect time, to more reliably in
  interruptible bursts of connectivity, raise through various tree
  wide cohesive snapshots, up to final state.  Whereas Svn that
  must run (uninterrupted?) to completion.

Cheers,
Julian
-- 
Julian Stacey, BSD Linux Unix Sys Eng Consultant Munich
 Reply below, Prefix '> '. Plain text, No .doc, base64, HTML, quoted-printable.
 http://berklix.eu/brexit/#stolen_votes