On Sat, 20 Jan 1996 17:23:18 -0600 THOMAS THOLE said:
>Folks,
>Is this a listserv problem, our system problem, the subscriber's problem,
>or netcom.com's problem?  Anything I should do as the listowner?
>
>The subscription keyword for the list is by_owner, so I forwarded
>the request back to [log in to unmask]  The subscriber was
>listed as [log in to unmask]  But that didn't work as the subscriber
>notes below:
>
>Thomas Thole
>Listowner deacon-l
>
>>From:  SMTP%"[log in to unmask]" 19-JAN-1996 11:01:49.83
>>Subj:  Address problem
>
>>I just tried to reply to a message on the deacon-l list and received a
>>BOUNCE saying that I wasn't authorized to post to the list. The problem, I'm
>>sure, is that I was using my POP mailer which attaches the POP to the address.
>>
>>IOW, I'm probably subscribed as [log in to unmask]
>>
>>My POP mailer produces an address such as [log in to unmask]
>>                                                   ^^^^^^
>>
>>The first netcom is subject to change. I manage a MAJORDOMO list (majordomo
>>doesn't have NEAR the features of listserv) and have it set to "munge" the
>>domains. With that turned on, the POP portion of the mailing address is
>>ignored when determining whether there is an address match. IOW, it would
>>accept [log in to unmask]  -or-  [log in to unmask] where the ?????
>>can be almost anything. The domain still must remain constant which gives me
>>the privacy I want for my list.
>>
>>If listserv has the same feature, you might want to consider turning it on.
>>Using different POP mailers is quite common.
>>
>Thanks for any suggestions.
>Tom Thole
 
According to what I heard from my friend.  He said that one of the main fibers
that connect server to servers for distribution of mail got cut off in NY on
Friday.  It caused problem for commercial accounts users. i.e ([log in to unmask])
 
Chris