On Tue, Jan 30 2018, Mark Sapiro wrote:
The underlying issue is the orange.fr domain is sending DSNs without a Message-ID: header.
Yes. Is a Message-ID header required in a DSN by any RFC?
If you used VERP (i.e. set verp_delivery_interval = 1 in the [mta] section of your config), this log message
I have verp_delivery_interval = 10 ...
would contain email@example.com and you could identify the bouncing address (firstname.lastname@example.org in this case) that way.
Yes, that's my intention, but first of all, mailman must receive the DSN.
Beyond that, there are still other issues, the biggest of which is currently, Mailman is not processing bounces other than storing them in the database. See https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/issues/343.
Shouldn't the DSNs be forwarded to the owner of the list?
if a recipient MTA can't create a DSN that has a Message-ID:, would you trust what else it does?
I don't know. The question for me is: does the remote MTA needs a fix (i.e. the Message-ID is required by some RFC), or mailman (i.e. a DSN without Message-ID should be acceptable)?