Thanks, Nathan.
But in this particular case, there does seem to have been something
different from what you describe:
On 11/18/2019 8:03 AM, Nathan Brindle
wrote:
[log in to unmask]">
2) Not having seen the full headers on the message myself, the only thing I can suggest is that the message was hung up in a queue somewhere between L-Soft and the eventual recipient, and a mail server reboot or some other action simply dislodged it. Depending on how that happened, it's possible the message could have looped back through the list. We see that sort of thing from time to time and basically it's just a head-scratcher as to how a mail server could punch out an old message like that. They're just zombie messages from the Internet, or whatever you want to call it, I guess.
While I'm entirely ready to believe in zombie messages, in this case
it looks like they were hung up, in L-Soft, before they reached the
list. Here's the relevant part of the header on the first message:
Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 17.0) with spool id
300981801 for [log in to unmask]; Fri, 15 Nov 2019
09:41:32 -0500
Approved-By: [log in to unmask]
Approved-By: [log in to unmask]
Received: from loquat.ease.lsoft.com (loquat.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.170]) by
RHONE.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.1d) (envelope-from
<[log in to unmask]>) for [log in to unmask] with TCP;
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:02:03 -0400
Received: from [209.119.0.169] ([209.119.0.169:50506]
helo=PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM) by camaro.dc.lsoft.com (envelope-from
<[log in to unmask]>) (ecelerity 3.6.0.39694 r(Platform:3.6.0.0))
with ESMTP id 60/59-02039-BC4CBF85; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:02:03 -0400
The second message, a reply a couple hours later, had similar trace entries.
Hal Keen