[ih] more bounce management, was update about bogus list unsubcribe requests

[Miles Fidelman]

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.

Miles

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra