[PSUBS-MAILIST] Web based discussion

[Jon Wallace]

The ISP can monitor that as well.  If you make too many separate 
connections within a certain time period they will block you. 
Unfortunately none of the major mailing list software come with such an 
option anyway.  They are typically designed for large lists and the 
problem with large lists is that you can get to a point where the 
software can't keep up if the outgoing mail is throttled to low.  I did 
write software for an outgoing only mailing list a few years ago which 
incorporated throttling but to modify it to accept incoming mail as well 
would require more time than I have to dedicate to it.

I have used majordomo since 1996 but development for it has been 
stagnant for years now and it has ceased functioning with the latest 
versions of Perl.  I moved over to mailman which looks to be working 
quite nicely but it does not have throttling capabilities.  These large 
ISP's are taking spam control to ridiculous levels in my opinion but 
there is nothing I can do about it.  Microsoft is even worse (hotmail, 
etc), they don't even give you the option of proving you are not 
producing spam.

Unfortunately we're slowly falling between a rock and a hard place.  I 
prefer the email option personally but about a dozen people are impacted 
by this AOL block.  They would either have to create new accounts with 
other providers as Douglas suggested, or file a complaint with AOL.  The 
problem however is that I'm starting to see more and more of this happening.


On 7/21/2013 9:04 PM, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
> Forgot to mention. Years ago there was already list management 
> software that could bust through SPAM filters. It was very simple: it 
> simply sent an individual message to every member of the list, so each 
> header contained only one destination address. Worked perfectly. At 
> the time, I was maintaining a mailing list for a magazine publisher, 
> and it was absolutely essential for EVERY email to get through because 
> we used the list to solicit updates for the annual directory issue. 
> There was no problem at all. Such software must still exist today.
>
> Best,
> Marc