In a previous message, s.merchant wrote:
: [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!").
 
Sorry but I've only just picked up this thread, and as a list maintainer
myself I too am interested in finding a solution.
 
: 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.)
 
Paid to do what ?  Go through everyones mail directories and remove any
list mail that may bounce ?
 
: 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.
 
We can not do that since we pledge to keep all mail for up to 31 days
from the date of receipt.
 
: 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.
 
This would not be relevant since we do not have a limit on the size of
mail directories. We do not operate a quota system.
 
: >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.
 
I recognise the problem and sympathise. I will have a chat with our mail
system administrator and see if we can come up with something to work
around this. One idea I have would be not to send warning messages in
response to mail that has a `Precedence: bulk' header. Would this solve
problems as far as you can see ?  I'm not promising anything but it seems
to be that this would be a workable solution.
 
        Regards,
                Dom.
--
  Demon Internet - IP level dialup Internet connectivity for GBP10 a month
  Snail-mail: 7th Floor, Gateway House, 322 Regents Park Rd, London N3 2QQ
  Sales -> Tel: 0181-371 1234, E-mail: [log in to unmask], Fax: 0181-371 1150
  Support -> Tel: 0181-371 1010, E-mail: [log in to unmask], Fax: as above