[log in to unmask] says, regarding my proposed policy for demon problems:
 
>I would ask that you immediately stop spreading untruths about our mail
>system.
 
Boy, I'm glad someone at demon.net _finally_ decided to acknowledge the
problem (the file with this message was dated 27 Jan, so I assume my
posting was from around that time).  BTW, you left out the part about
the unhelpful attitude from [log in to unmask] to my explanation of
the problem and suggestions for rectification (to paraphrase: A curt
"Nope, impossible!").
 
: >We understand that demon provides dial-up access, and that the mail is
: >not delivered until the user actually dials up (unlike most dial-up
 
>This is blatantly incorrect. Mail sent to our dialup customers *is*
>stored in their directory on our mail machines. When they connect, the
 
Same difference as far as the effect--what difference does it make
whether it's a system queue or a per-user queue as far as the end
result, if a time expiration is the criterion for bouncing the mail?
Anyway, it's easy enough to clarify the description and I'll do so.
 
: >This means that if someone stops accessing his demon account, eight days
: >later (and not before), the list administrators start getting bounces.
: >Even if they remove the address right away from their lists, there are
: >still 8 days worth of bounces pending, and furthermore, this may be
: >periodically repeated for up to 31 days!   For high-volume lists (tens
: >to hundreds of messages per day), this could result in literally
: >hundreds to thousands of largely redundant bounce messages to the list
: >administrators, all from ONE demon user, even after the user has been
: >deleted from the list.  This severely impedes the ability of the list
: >managers to run the list.
 
>This is correct, but surely this is the fault of the thoughtless person
>who has subscribed to a list and then never bothered to read their mail,
>rather than Demon as an Internet provider.
 
No, it is not anyone's fault.  It is an _incompatibility_ between (a) the
way Demon chooses to handle unread mail (b) users who don't read their
mail regularly and (c) the way mailing lists operate.  As a list-owner,
my "solution" to this incompatibility is to avoid it
altogether--remember that I have NO control over any of (a)-(c) above.
As an Internet provider, Demon has direct control over at least (a) and
can, if they choose, rectify this (e.g., see my suggestion below).  (Not
to mention that there should be people around Demon who are *paid* to do
this sort of thing, unlike most listowners.)
 
: >Demon is the only site we are aware of that has this setup and, therefore,
: >this problem; to date, they have been unwilling to modify it.  Please
: >contact them directly if you are unhappy about this.
 
>There are many Internet providers that follow a similar system, why
>single Demon out ?  If subscribers to your list don't read it for weeks
>at a time then why are they subscribed in the first place ?
 
The basic problem (which *I* have never seen myself with providers other
than Demon, or heard discussed by other listowners, although I cannot
refute your claim that there are other providers who also use it) is
that Demon waits too long before the first notification (8 days) and,
furthermore, does not flush the complete queue (for that user) at that
point.  The second aspect of this approach that makes it a real problem
is that it is triggered by *inaction* of a *user*.  There are other
administrations that I've been exposed to that use a 3-7 day reporting
time (still too long for my tastes), but these are for network
*problems*, and these come up infrequently because of their more
widespread effect (besides, it's recognized as a defect, so there's a
better chance of its being fixed).  But no, when I encounter other
domains with the same system as Demon, they will get a similar
message--it wasn't my intention to give preferential treatment to any
one :-).
 
I would suggest that Demon adopt a "Mailbox full" error message system
(which AOL and most others, for that matter, seem to use).  It would
seem a lot easier to implement at your end, and the list owner gets the
notification right away, can delete the user right away, and the bounces
stop (almost) right away.
 
>Please don't get me wrong, I can understand your annoyance. I am a list
>maintainer myself and receive the same volume of warning messages. My
>solution is to remove anyone from any site who's mail starts bouncing and
>do not let them subscribe again until they can persuade me that they will
>not do the same again.
 
Too late: the damage (dozens if not hundreds of additional error
messages "in the pipe") has already been done by then, and _that's_ what
I don't want to deal with.  If Demon wants to be "mailing-list-manager-
friendly," it needs to recognize and correct this problem.
 
Shahrukh Merchant