Clearly the problem is XXXXXXXX :-( Actually, this IS NOT an example of a redistributed message, but instead a LISTSERV administrative message back to the original poster of the attempt of the duplicate posting. /pete At 05:12 4/13/2006 Thursday, Eggleston Scott wrote: >This is one of the headers from the redistributed e-mails > >Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0 >Received: from XXXXXXXX ([XXXXXXXX]) by XXXXXXXX with Microsoft >SMTPSVC(XXXXXXXXX); > Fri, 3 Mar 2006 19:07:59 +0000 >Received: from XXXXXX ([XXXXXXX]) by XXXXXXXXXX with Microsoft >SMTPSVC(XXXXXXXXXX); > Fri, 3 Mar 2006 19:08:06 +0000 >Received: from XXXXXXXX ([XXXXXXXXX]) by XXXXXXXX with Microsoft >SMTPSVC(XXXXXXXXXX); > Fri, 3 Mar 2006 19:17:18 +0000 >Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:37:38 +0000 >From: "XXXXXXXXXX" <XXXXXXXXXX> >Subject: Message ("Your message dated Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:10:29 >-0000...") >To: No Name Available <XXXXXXXXXX> >Message-ID: <XXXXXXXXXX> >Return-Path: <> >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2006 19:17:18.0500 (UTC) >FILETIME=[16AE3E40:01C63EF7] > > >Any ideas ? > > > > > >Scott Eggleston > >Senior Systems Engineer > >Systems & Applications > >NHS Connecting For Health (NPfIT) > >0113 397 3409 > >[log in to unmask] > >www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: LISTSERV site administrators' forum >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pete Weiss >Sent: 12 April 2006 17:47 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Redistribution of old messages > >At 12:29 4/12/2006 Wednesday, Stan Horwitz wrote: > >>Can you post a copy of the full header for one of those replicated >>messages to this list? > > >Just to be sure, post full-headers from a set (two) of dups. This may >help pin-point where the differences start to occur (reading from the >bottom UP of the RECEIVED line headers). > >/Pete > >This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended >recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or >distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on >its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please >inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you >for your co-operation. End Reply