FAQ
I received a uncaught bounce notification from one of my lists today.
The bounce looks pretty normal, and figured it should have been caught
by the bounce system. How do I report bounce formats that did not get
caught by the bounce system?



Here is the bounce. I changed the e-mail address. And, yes the e-mail
address is currently subscribed to the list.



Hi. The MTA program at mta6-1.us4.outblaze.com was unable to deliver
your message to the following addresses.

This is a permanent error.



<x at x>:

Error 01373: User's Disk Quota Exceeded.

Sorry, your intended recipient has too much mail stored

in his mailbox.

Your message totalled 23 Kbytes.

However a small (< 1Kb) message will be delivered should

you wish to inform your recipient you tried to email.

Search Discussions

  • Mark Sapiro at Feb 14, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    Jeff Grossman wrote:
    I received a uncaught bounce notification from one of my lists today.
    The bounce looks pretty normal, and figured it should have been caught
    by the bounce system. How do I report bounce formats that did not get
    caught by the bounce system?

    You send them to me, but I need the full raw message, not just the
    body, because various things in the headers are used to determine
    which heuristics to apply to the message.

    Here is the bounce. I changed the e-mail address. And, yes the e-mail
    address is currently subscribed to the list.

    Whether or not the address is a list member has nothing to do with
    recognition. If the bounce is sent to you as unrecognized, Mailman
    doesn't know what address bounced. Mailman is saying it couldn't
    determine the address. If Mailman had determined the address, and it
    wasn't a list member, it would have just ignored the bounce

    Hi. The MTA program at mta6-1.us4.outblaze.com was unable to deliver
    your message to the following addresses.

    This is a permanent error.

    This has a Qmail flavor to it, but it doesn't comply with
    <http://cr.yp.to/proto/qsbmf.txt>.


    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Grant Taylor at Feb 14, 2009 at 11:56 pm

    On 02/13/2009 07:29 PM, Jeff Grossman wrote:
    I received a uncaught bounce notification from one of my lists today.
    The bounce looks pretty normal, and figured it should have been
    caught by the bounce system. How do I report bounce formats that did
    not get caught by the bounce system?
    Though it would be nice for Mailman to recognize this bounce format and
    automatically process it, I am questioning if this particular bounce
    should be acted upon or not.

    Seeing as how this bounce was generated because the recipient was over
    quota "User's Disk Quota Exceeded", I wonder what the appropriate thing
    to do is. This is (IMHO) *very* likely to be a transient / temporary
    error. As such I'm not sure that I would want to act on this particular
    error. However if a bunch of these errors happened, then I might want
    to take action.

    So I'm not sure if this is where the number of bounces (before something
    is done) comes in to play, or what. Just something to think about.



    Grant. . . .
  • Jeff Grossman at Feb 15, 2009 at 12:59 am

    Grant Taylor wrote:
    On 02/13/2009 07:29 PM, Jeff Grossman wrote:
    I received a uncaught bounce notification from one of my lists today.
    The bounce looks pretty normal, and figured it should have been
    caught by the bounce system. How do I report bounce formats that did
    not get caught by the bounce system?
    Though it would be nice for Mailman to recognize this bounce format and
    automatically process it, I am questioning if this particular bounce
    should be acted upon or not.

    Seeing as how this bounce was generated because the recipient was over
    quota "User's Disk Quota Exceeded", I wonder what the appropriate thing
    to do is. This is (IMHO) *very* likely to be a transient / temporary
    error. As such I'm not sure that I would want to act on this particular
    error. However if a bunch of these errors happened, then I might want
    to take action.

    So I'm not sure if this is where the number of bounces (before something
    is done) comes in to play, or what. Just something to think about.
    Don't temporary failures get a score of 0.5 while a permanent failure gets
    a score of 1.0? So, if that is the case, these temporary failures would
    take longer to suspend the account. I think these should be counted.

    Jeff
  • Mark Sapiro at Feb 15, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    Jeff Grossman wrote:
    Don't temporary failures get a score of 0.5 while a permanent failure gets
    a score of 1.0? So, if that is the case, these temporary failures would
    take longer to suspend the account. I think these should be counted.

    That's what the documentation says, but in fact, it doesn't work that
    way. Bounces which are recognized as 'warnings', e.g. "Unable to
    deliver your message for 4 hours, will keep trying ...", are ignored.
    All other recognized bounces are given a weight of 1.0.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Jeff Grossman at Feb 15, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    Mark Sapiro wrote:
    Jeff Grossman wrote:
    Don't temporary failures get a score of 0.5 while a permanent failure
    gets
    a score of 1.0? So, if that is the case, these temporary failures would
    take longer to suspend the account. I think these should be counted.

    That's what the documentation says, but in fact, it doesn't work that
    way. Bounces which are recognized as 'warnings', e.g. "Unable to
    deliver your message for 4 hours, will keep trying ...", are ignored.
    All other recognized bounces are given a weight of 1.0.
    Oh, thanks for that information.
  • Mark Sapiro at Feb 15, 2009 at 1:04 am

    Grant Taylor wrote:
    On 02/13/2009 07:29 PM, Jeff Grossman wrote:
    I received a uncaught bounce notification from one of my lists today.
    The bounce looks pretty normal, and figured it should have been
    caught by the bounce system. How do I report bounce formats that did
    not get caught by the bounce system?
    Though it would be nice for Mailman to recognize this bounce format and
    automatically process it, I am questioning if this particular bounce
    should be acted upon or not.

    That question hinges on whether or not the bounce should be considered
    a permanent or a temporary failure. The bounce itself says "This is a
    permanent error."

    Seeing as how this bounce was generated because the recipient was over
    quota "User's Disk Quota Exceeded", I wonder what the appropriate thing
    to do is. This is (IMHO) *very* likely to be a transient / temporary
    error.

    I disagree. I think it is likely to be an abandoned account, but in any
    case, with default bounce processing settings, The user's delivery
    won't be disabled until a bounce like this is received on 5 separate
    days.

    As such I'm not sure that I would want to act on this particular
    error. However if a bunch of these errors happened, then I might want
    to take action.

    So I'm not sure if this is where the number of bounces (before something
    is done) comes in to play, or what. Just something to think about.

    Exactly.

    Also note that the message also said "Your message totalled 23 Kbytes.
    However a small (< 1Kb) message will be delivered should
    you wish to inform your recipient you tried to email."

    So probably when we disable the user's delivery after 5 days of
    bounces, the disabled notice we send to the user might be accepted,
    and with default settings, the user won't be unsubscribed until 3
    weeks and two more notices later.

    Granted, this could be a user on an extended vacation (over a month),
    but in that case, ultimately unsubscribing the user is easy to reverse
    and is small penalty for the user's forgetting to disable list
    delivery.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Ed's Shop at Feb 15, 2009 at 1:23 am
    *****
    Grant Taylor wrote:
    On 02/13/2009 07:29 PM, Jeff Grossman wrote:
    I received a uncaught bounce notification from one of my lists today.
    The bounce looks pretty normal, and figured it should have been
    caught by the bounce system. How do I report bounce formats that did
    not get caught by the bounce system?
    Though it would be nice for Mailman to recognize this bounce format and
    automatically process it, I am questioning if this particular bounce
    should be acted upon or not.

    That question hinges on whether or not the bounce should be considered
    a permanent or a temporary failure. The bounce itself says "This is a
    permanent error."

    Seeing as how this bounce was generated because the recipient was over
    quota "User's Disk Quota Exceeded", I wonder what the appropriate thing
    to do is. This is (IMHO) *very* likely to be a transient / temporary
    error.

    I disagree. I think it is likely to be an abandoned account, but in any
    case, with default bounce processing settings, The user's delivery
    won't be disabled until a bounce like this is received on 5 separate
    days.

    As such I'm not sure that I would want to act on this particular
    error. However if a bunch of these errors happened, then I might want
    to take action.

    So I'm not sure if this is where the number of bounces (before something
    is done) comes in to play, or what. Just something to think about.

    Exactly.

    Also note that the message also said "Your message totalled 23 Kbytes.
    However a small (< 1Kb) message will be delivered should
    you wish to inform your recipient you tried to email."

    So probably when we disable the user's delivery after 5 days of
    bounces, the disabled notice we send to the user might be accepted,
    and with default settings, the user won't be unsubscribed until 3
    weeks and two more notices later.

    Granted, this could be a user on an extended vacation (over a month),
    but in that case, ultimately unsubscribing the user is easy to reverse
    and is small penalty for the user's forgetting to disable list
    delivery.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

    ------------------------------------------------------
    *****

    I have TEN guys on one of my cPanel List that travel a LOT and
    (used to -:) ) Forget to either STOP their subscription or UN-sub.

    That BOUNCE(s) used to drive me NUTS until I REALLY put my
    foot down AFTER contacting each Lister and finding out what-was-what and
    then or THIRD occurrence (each) I banned them which
    DID 'get their attention' !!! -:)

    At the very beginning of the 1st gent causing it, I also was REALLY
    'wondering' and was actually going to ask the same sort of thing as
    Jeff had.

    Investigate, investigate, investigate. -:)

    Ed
  • Grant Taylor at Feb 15, 2009 at 1:32 am

    On 02/14/2009 07:04 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
    That question hinges on whether or not the bounce should be
    considered a permanent or a temporary failure. The bounce itself says
    "This is a permanent error."
    Agreed. However I believe the permanent or temporary nature that the
    bounce is speaking of is on the SMTP level, thus the sending server
    should not try to send this given message again. I think it is a flaw
    to extend this SMTP meaning up to actual future (different) message
    delivery.
    I disagree. I think it is likely to be an abandoned account, but in
    any case, with default bounce processing settings, The user's
    delivery won't be disabled until a bounce like this is received on 5
    separate days.
    Possibly. My experience with my customer shows that people are likely
    to hit their quota over a weekend or a vacation. When they come back
    the following week (or when ever) and POP all their messages out of
    their box, the /temporary/ error is corrected. Granted my experience
    may be limited to my customer scope and more than likely does not apply
    to someone like GMail or HotMail or Yahoo. I guess it depends on the
    customer base.
    So probably when we disable the user's delivery after 5 days of
    bounces, the disabled notice we send to the user might be accepted,
    and with default settings, the user won't be unsubscribed until 3
    weeks and two more notices later.
    Agreed... as long as there is not < 23 kB worth of email received in the
    next 3 weeks. However if the user does not clean out their mail box in
    that time this leads credence to the likely hood that the account is
    abandoned.
    Granted, this could be a user on an extended vacation (over a month),
    but in that case, ultimately unsubscribing the user is easy to
    reverse and is small penalty for the user's forgetting to disable
    list delivery.
    True...



    Grant. . . .


    P.S. I find it interesting that the bounce is eluding to the amount of
    space remaining in the account. This is (in my experience) extremely
    unusual.
  • Mark Sapiro at Feb 15, 2009 at 2:08 am

    Grant Taylor wrote:
    P.S. I find it interesting that the bounce is eluding to the amount of
    space remaining in the account. This is (in my experience) extremely
    unusual.

    As I read the bounce, it says

    Sorry, your intended recipient has too much mail stored
    in his mailbox.
    Your message totalled 23 Kbytes.
    However a small (< 1Kb) message will be delivered should
    you wish to inform your recipient you tried to email.

    and I interpret that to mean that even though the user is over quota,
    the MTA will accept a < 1 KB message to allow you to try to notify the
    user of the problem, not that the user is 1 KB below quota.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Grant Taylor at Feb 15, 2009 at 2:14 am

    On 02/14/2009 08:08 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
    and I interpret that to mean that even though the user is over quota,
    the MTA will accept a < 1 KB message to allow you to try to notify
    the user of the problem, not that the user is 1 KB below quota.
    *nod*

    Hopefully there is a limit to how far over quota the mail box can be
    before the server stops accepting small messages, or it would still be
    possible to DoS the system.



    Grant. . . .
  • Brad Knowles at Feb 15, 2009 at 7:45 am

    on 2/14/09 7:32 PM, Grant Taylor said:

    Agreed. However I believe the permanent or temporary nature that the
    bounce is speaking of is on the SMTP level, thus the sending server
    should not try to send this given message again. I think it is a flaw
    to extend this SMTP meaning up to actual future (different) message
    delivery.
    This is an excellent point. I don't think I could have said it better
    myself.

    --
    Brad Knowles
    <brad at shub-internet.org> If you like Jazz/R&B guitar, check out
    LinkedIn Profile: my friend bigsbytracks on YouTube at
    <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu> http://preview.tinyurl.com/bigsbytracks

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupmailman-users @
categoriespython
postedFeb 14, '09 at 1:29a
activeFeb 15, '09 at 5:17p
posts12
users5
websitelist.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase