[Release] MailWizz - v1.3.6.2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Niko

Active Member
I think the blacklist need to be improved..for example the soft bounce for reputation should not be included in blacklist
 

VVT

Active Member
@Diego @Niko But how would you actually differentiate between a real soft bounce and a reputation related bounce accurately ? Though there are RFCs for bounce types, ISPs may give false positive bounces with any bounce code they wish, to fight spam. "User doesn't exist, Recipient rejected, Relay access denied" etc are some examples. So, I guess the best way is to either up the Max soft bounce value at the backend or treat such bounce codes differently in the bounce handler file.
 

Diego

Member
Yes. It's hard. Maybe a counter? Example: 2 bounces in the last 30 days, you're blacklisted. (is that the "Max soft bounce" that you say?)
 

VVT

Active Member
Yeah.. that's the setting I'm talking about..But that's applied widely on all soft bounces. About the other logic, I can't think of something simple other than modifying the bounce rules file :). And I guess you will have to modify it dynamically. Because we have a million ISPs available and they change their codes periodically. So, a common approach would be difficult. So once you identify a reputation based bounce, you will have to add/edit it on the bounce rules file.
 

Niko

Active Member
the simple way for now is add a filter for search client/sender on "Email Blacklist"
in that way manually we can remove email address from blacklist based on bounce from reputation
 

VVT

Active Member
If you can do it manually, obviously that would be the best way :D. I used to do that.
 

twisted1919

Administrator
Staff member
@Niko / @VVT / @Diego - These days i worked into improved the bounce handling and beside the regular hard and soft bounces, i have implemented another type of bounces, that is "Internal" bounces. I call them internal because they happen because of server issues and not because of email address issues.
So for example an ISP might return a message back because he does not like the sender. If this type of message would have been marked as soft/bounce till now, depending on what the ISP would have returned, from next version, mailwizz will be able to see that it is an "internal" bounce that should not affect the subscriber/customer.
So we make progresses in this area too, it's just a step at a time.
 

VVT

Active Member
@Niko / @VVT / @Diego - These days i worked into improved the bounce handling and beside the regular hard and soft bounces, i have implemented another type of bounces, that is "Internal" bounces. I call them internal because they happen because of server issues and not because of email address issues.
So for example an ISP might return a message back because he does not like the sender. If this type of message would have been marked as soft/bounce till now, depending on what the ISP would have returned, from next version, mailwizz will be able to see that it is an "internal" bounce that should not affect the subscriber/customer.
So we make progresses in this area too, it's just a step at a time.
This would be a great step. I was actually going to propose something very similar, trust me :) , but thought that would be too much of work for you ;). The advantage I see with such an option is that we can re-enable those subscribers in future if the old issues are sorted out. At present this is very difficult since all go into "blacklisted" status finally. Appreciated !
 

frm.mwz

Well-Known Member
@Diego @Niko But how would you actually differentiate between a real soft bounce and a reputation related bounce accurately ? Though there are RFCs for bounce types, ISPs may give false positive bounces with any bounce code they wish, to fight spam. "User doesn't exist, Recipient rejected, Relay access denied" etc are some examples. So, I guess the best way is to either up the Max soft bounce value at the backend or treat such bounce codes differently in the bounce handler file.
Exactly because many mail servers are oddly adjusted, it is so important to read, from time to time, the messages that come back into all channels (bounce, sender, alerts, postmaster, abuse, fbl, etc). I have been doing that for years, and I also think that tweaking and twisting the files that contain the error codes is the only way to keep the machine humming forward & upward. MailMan had since a long time a way to adjust these quite nicely. And many mailers have custom setting files. It's great this will be (even) more nuanced now.
 

frm.mwz

Well-Known Member
@Niko / @VVT / @Diego - These days i worked into improved the bounce handling and beside the regular hard and soft bounces, i have implemented another type of bounces, that is "Internal" bounces. I call them internal because they happen because of server issues and not because of email address issues.
So for example an ISP might return a message back because he does not like the sender. If this type of message would have been marked as soft/bounce till now, depending on what the ISP would have returned, from next version, mailwizz will be able to see that it is an "internal" bounce that should not affect the subscriber/customer.
So we make progresses in this area too, it's just a step at a time.
(Great job @twisted1919 can't wait for next weekend/release! :D )
Hope the 'internal' category will still allow for the custom settings to override (part or all)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top