Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 4 Sep 90 10:09:30 CDT |
In-Reply-To: |
Message of Mon, 3 Sep 90 20:27:18 O from <ERIC@SEARN> |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Mon, 3 Sep 90 20:27:18 O Eric Thomas said:
> ... Mail from any user matching one of the patterns in the file
>would be subjected to a special treatment, depending on the control word
>following the pattern. It could be discarded and forgotten about, or
>transferred to the postmaster without being replied to, or result in a
>nastygram back saying that we are very sorry but your gateway is causing
>us problems so you will not be able to send commands until you get the
>gatemaster to fix his code. ...
>
>Does this sound like the right solution to the problem?
>
> Eric
A fourth alternative is that if mail can be identified as being associated
with some list, process it according to the Errors-to: of that list. If
the Errors-to: indicates the owners, then the load on the postmaster would
be reduced. It would also allow owners to remove offending addresses if
the reject notice is a non-standard form of "no such user at this site" or
whatever.
As the owner of several lists, I would prefer this method. If I start
getting too many useless messages from a gateway, then I would likely ask
my postmaster to take the "black hole" option for that address.
---Tom Reid
|
|
|