On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Michael Shannon wrote:

+ This is an odd one....

+ To:
+ <[log in to unmask]>

Looks like an incorrectly 'translated' X.400 variant of the address.

 #e# -> =
 #059# -> ;

C=AU;A=access400;P=Internet;[log in to unmask]

Note that the @-sign should be '(a)' were it to be a real X.400 notation,
if I remember correctly.

In X.400 this means "move the message to the gateway of Access400
(A=ADMD, i.e. the 'X.400 provider') in Australia (AU) and gateway it to
[log in to unmask]".

+ Cc: <[log in to unmask]>

+ Notice the extra garbage some mail agent (server or client?) has inserted in
+ the 'To:' field.  Email that he sent to me directly didn't have the extra
+ characters, it only seems to manifest itself when sending to LISTSERV.  Has
+ anyone else seen this behaviour before?

I've seen variants of 'bad translations' before (actually, the last one
last week) where some but not all adressess were incorrectly converted
from one mail domain (X.400) to the other (RFC822) and hence became
unreplyable on the RFC822 side. In all these cases it was (uhh, is) a
badly configured gateway. I'm not sure however this is the case here,
Chris might have a lead with the addressbook entry suggestion.

+ Any suggestions I can give to the subscriber?

Without knowing the environment of the subscriber (user interface, rules
to address the RFC822-world etc) that's hard to say. I would ask him/her
how the address was entered (X.400 style or RFC822 style) and whether
he/she did that according to the 'rules' of that environment (note the
fact that in X.400 the @-sign should be substituted with (a) in most
environments, depending on the interface etc).

If it was entered correctly and X.400 style I would suggest the subscriber
to contact the local administrators and/or the administrators of the
gateway (Access400). Should it be a gateway/X.400-problem they should be
able to find the problem.

Cheers,

Xander (who thought/hoped he had forgotten all about X.400 ;-)