On Fri, 9 Dec 1994, Patrick wrote: > Opinions will differ, I'm sure, but from here it looks like "auto-delete" > is one of those "improvements" that must have looked good on paper but > turns out to be a pain in the neck in practice. Well, I haven't used it, but I can see that it could cause problems. I still think auto-delete's still a good idea though -- maybe it just needs to be tweaked a little. People who use SmartList, another list manager for Unix, rave about its autodelete function: like LISTSERV, it first tries to determine whether errors are "temporary" or "permanent," but unlike LISTSERV, when it gets a "permanent" error, rather than immediately deleting the address it simply starts a counter of consecutive errors on mail to that address. When the count hits some list-owner specified number, the server sends a final warning to the account (which may bounce of course, but at least it tried). Next bounce, it deletes the account while notifying the list owner. How does that sound? I think auto-delete is an important productivity feature for big lists, and it's great that LISTSERV has it. Still, everything can be improved. Eric, if you're there, what do *you* think? Am I missing some important implementation issue? Could some sort of "tolerance" be built into the auto-delete function? I think if I were designing it I'd prefer something like "x unsuccessful deliveries, but don't delete until at least x days of no success," just in case some heavy wave of mail pushed someone over the bounce limit in a very short time ... Norm