From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27347 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2006 23:55:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 27340 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2006 23:55:43 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ACCESS1.CIMS.NYU.EDU (HELO access1.cims.nyu.edu) (128.122.81.155) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:55:38 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by access1.cims.nyu.edu (8.13.6+Sun/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3INtaqi003964 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:55:00 -0000 From: Igor Peshansky Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List Subject: Re: FW: Good old nabble In-Reply-To: <20060418234349.GC776@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Message-ID: References: <6887fd8a0604181550h2a07c541obca2ec50e3c8f375@mail.gmail.com> <20060418234349.GC776@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List X-SW-Source: 2006-q2/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 03:50:42PM -0700, Rod Morris wrote: > > >You're right, we need to resolve this problem. Right now, the > >message gets posted locally and we forward the email to the list > >using the Nabble user's registered email address as the sender. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >If the user's post is rejected or if the user doesn't complete the > >subscription process or if he gets banned from the list, we would > >only know because we never get the message back from the list. > > I can't quite parse the above but ezmlm does send a bounce message when > lists@nabble.com tries to send a message to the cygwin-apps mailing > list. I think I can parse it. Look at the underlined text above. I believe this means that the bounce goes back to the user, and the Nabble software never receives it... > >Currently, we assume that the user screwed up the confirmation step and > >we send him an email once a day to remind him to complete it and tell > >him that the message didn't go through. But if that never happens, then > >we do have a problem. > > > >Flag these messages as 'Pending' sounds like a good idea. I can have our > >UI guy come up with something that makes sense and will make it obvious. > > nabble is blocked from sending emal to cygwin-apps. So no matter what > process the user goes through on your end, their messages will never > show up in the cygwin-apps mailing list. Hmm, does Nabble actually try to subscribe them to the list? :-o > >Then what? Should we delete them from the archive if they don't go > >through after some period of time, a weeks perhaps? > > You're calling this "an archive" but it is not an archive of cygwin-apps > if it (even briefly) contains a copy of a message which never was part > of actual cygwin-apps traffic. > > Can you mark sourceware's subscriber-only mailing lists as read-only on > your end so that attempts to send a message are blocked immediately? > > OTOH, you could also notice when sourceware sends you a message > indicating that your message was denied and remove the message. Can Nabble be set up so that the bounce message goes to Nabble and not to the user? Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!) |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! "Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte." "But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"