home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!atlantis.psu.edu!barr
- From: barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr)
- Subject: Re: More problems with the UUCP maps
- Message-ID: <t241He?w0c@atlantis.psu.edu>
- Sender: news@atlantis.psu.edu (Usenet)
- Organization: Penn State Population Research Institute
- References: <C10os2.E8B@cs.psu.edu> <694.UUL1.3#5131@mvac23.UUCP>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 16:25:15 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <694.UUL1.3#5131@mvac23.UUCP> thomas@mvac23.UUCP (Thomas Lapp) writes:
- >fenner@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes:
- >
- >> Mail went into a black hole (no
- >> bounce, no warnings, no nothing): 62 (34%)
- >>
- >
- >In the case of mvac23, I have it set up so that it doesn't automatically
- >bounce messages which are addressed to non-existant accounts. It goes
- >into a failure bin, which I check every so often and manually "fix",
- >since it is usually a munge of a good address. So rather than
- >frustrating someone with a bounce, I try to get the mail delivered.
-
- IMHO this is bogus. Why not just bounce the message and have the
- user fix his address? What is so "frustrating" about it? If the
- addresses get munged, then it's a matter of either informing the user
- or fixing whatever software is munging the address.
- Note I'm not against the postmaster manually fixing bounced
- mail and redelivering it, but I think it should be done _in addition_
- to an automatic bounce, not in place of. What if you go on vacation?
-
- --Dave
- --
- System Administrator, Population Research Institute barr@pop.psu.edu
- #define ENOTTY 25 /* Not a typewriter */
-