Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8899FC7F2 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:43:44 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14981-02-2 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:43:20 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from main2.mycybernet.net (main2.mycybernet.net [209.222.63.140]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3BFE9FCFF1 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:36:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 227-54-222-209.mycybernet.net ([209.222.54.227] helo=crankycanuck.ca) by main2.mycybernet.net with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Indy9-0004DH-VT; Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:36:38 -0400 Received: by crankycanuck.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A9D094050; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:36:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:36:32 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: "Marc G. Fournier" Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" , Magnus Hagander , pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: what is up with the PG mailing lists? Message-ID: <20071101173632.GV27676@crankycanuck.ca> References: <47299957.5020605@postgresql.org> <2968.1193919208@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20071101080959.49f3087b@scratch> <20071101152333.GM27676@crankycanuck.ca> <4729F105.30704@hagander.net> <1127E6493CBA8A29F343C4D7@ganymede.hub.org> <4729F7D2.6050608@hagander.net> <20071101092806.3b1fa452@scratch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200711/40 X-Sequence-Number: 12818 On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 01:42:31PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > "450 mailbox unavailable" > - great, should be 550, but as its 450, we'll keep retrying Hehe. We just had this one, no? ;-) This is Yet Another Victim of the "safe" mail delivery rules in postfix. They're safe for the recipient, of course, but hazardous to the Net. > "lost connection with mail.mindef.mil.gt" This is exactly the sort of thing we have to worry about. On global lists with subscribers possibly on crappy connections, the cost to the relaying mail server go up _exponentially_. Not everyone is in well-connected locales, and managing backoff queues is bloody expensive. Add a few thousand users to the mix, and things go south very quickly. > "Host or domain name not found" This should just bounce, no? > "451 SPAM not accepted" > - again, if you aren't going to accept it, why temporary fail it so that I > try again? Indeed. Some clever anti-spam people think that this is a clever mechanism -- they "force the spammers to pay extra". The problem is when their not-quite-as-clever-as-they-thought filters catch something the wrong way. The entire Internet pays. (This is also, by the way, the basis for the "no thanks" response we should and usually do give to people who show up with 80% solutions for "performance problems" in PostgreSQL.) A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. --George Orwell