At 10:53 AM 4/20/97 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Well, the reason it matters to me seems to be just the opposite of your
>rant -- I want to make sure that my settings cause the bad addresses to be

Oh, Sherry....that wasn't a rant....if you want rants I can give them, but
I don't usually bother.

>deleted, rather than having Listserv simply eat the bounces and continue
>posting to them, thereby wasting bandwidth.  With settings of
>Delay(1),Max(1) I anticipated that any address with one permanent bounce in
>a 24-hour period would be deleted.  However, I consistently have monitoring
>reports that state on day 1 that 14 people are being monitored, but on day
>2 show that only 5 of those people were actually deleted.  I want to know
>why all 14 weren't deleted.  Perhaps because ours are broadcast-only lists,

Oh, I understand the question....I just am not so worried about bandwidth
and stuff.  In the total picture of the net, or even of your site, the
amount of bandwidth saved vs. not saved depending on the things you're
concerned about is less than that blown by one direct email spammer hitting
your site.  But I'm also not a fanatic on recycling or other "good things"
either.

>I almost never have to deal with subscribers who are pissed-off because
>they've been deleted -- I guess I'm lucky.

Yup.   You are.  But we tough old birds just let it bounce right off of our
teflon hides.

cyclops




Dan Lester
[log in to unmask]
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.  Erasmus, 1534