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