[ih] more bounce management, was update about bogus list unsubcribe requests
mfidelman at meetinghouse.net
Fri Aug 26 19:31:19 PDT 2016
On 8/26/16 9:37 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> It's not just bandwidth. It's also a matter of CPU cycles - at both
>> ends (particularly when you factor in antivirus and antispam processing).
> Having actually done this, I'd say that it's a rather unusual mail
> system if the extra processing to handle multiple copies of a message
> poses a problem. Have you tried measuring it?
Well, on the outgoing side, one need only run antispam/virus on each
message once. But, I would assume that if I send 100 copies of a
message, to individual addresses at AOL, AOL will run antispam/virus on
each copy - as opposed to receiving one copy with 100 addressees in the
To: line. I could be wrong.
>> The only way to deal with that is to send each
>> recipient their own message, then go through and match message id's in
>> the log file. What a waste.
> Please see previous message. Really, it's not 1996 any more, the
> extra bandwidth and processing for individual deliveries are trivial
> on today's Internet.
> Also, if figuring out redacted bounces is a problem, nobody will
> redact an x-fooble header with a base64 version of the recipient
> address. People at the mail systems that do the redaction have
> assured me it's purely to satisfy some odd lawyer privacy theory, the
> lawyers only care about plain text versions of addresses, they know
> it's trivially easy to encode the recipient in another header, and
> that's just dandy with them. That's the sort of thing I'll hack into
> Sympa if I ever have time.
Well yes - but now we're back into sending individual copies of
messages, rather than one copy with multiple addressees.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
More information about the Internet-history