In article <[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] (Peter
Molnar) writes:
>Some of our network and systems folks here are working on fixing
>the mailer that serves our masses.  I have been asked what the
>most appropriate way would be for them to deal with bounced mail
>when the sender was a Listserv list.  They are concerned with just
>sending the message back to Listserv for fear that some
>Listserv's may actually post the bounced message to the list.
>Their main question is:  If we receive a message from a list that
>we are not able to deliver, to whom/what should we send the bounced
>message to (and, if there is a hierarchy of who bounced mail should be
>sent to, what is the ordering)?
>
 
While there may be more robust and fancy ways, I believe it is sufficient
to simply begin the Subject: line of the returned mail with "Undeliver"
(e.g.	"Undeliverable mail: blah blah"). LISTSERV will assume that any mail
whose
Subject: begins with that text is an error reply and will pass it on to the
postmater and list owner rather than posting it to the list. So, your mailer
could return mail to LISTSERV lists just the same as it returns mail to the
masses if you choose the proper Subject: line for your error replies.
 
The precedence of header fields when determining where to send an error is
not written in stone, to my knowledge. A good order, from most preferred to
last option, would be "Errors-to","Reply-to","Sender","From". "Errors-to"
is not widely used and is not documented in the Internet standards (RFC's
822, 1123)-- its purpose seems obvious ("send errors to this address") but
the standards do not say how to handle it; you could ignore Errors-to:
without violating any standard (someone, correct me if I'm mistaken). Just
be sure not to send error replies to mail whose SMTP origin or Return-Path:
is "<>" (i.e. null).
 
--Shane Davis
  Postmaster, etc.
  Univ. of Texas at Dallas