On Tue, 3 Sep 1991 20:00:00 EDT John F. Chandler said: >Perhaps the problem is not at Harvard after all, and perhaps your >(possibly wrong) assertion was made in such a way as to irk the >postmaster(s) you sent the reports to. My notes to the postmasters at Harvard have been very polite and as informative as I could make them. I also offered to help troubleshoot the problem if I could be of any assistance. I only posted to this list after a number of such instances. The last one I sent may not have been that nice, but it was about the 8th time I'd reported the problem and it wasn't unreasonable either. > The sample mail file you >included proves nothing but that the missing line got dropped before >or when it reached the mailer daemon at HARVARD.BITNET. On its own >showing, the message had passed through BUACCA along the way, presumably >via LISTSERV@BUACCA and [log in to unmask] Did you take any steps to >eliminate both of those as possible culprits? Yes, I believe that's it fairly clear that the trouble is at Harvard since there are two Harvard address on the list, and only one has this problem. And I believe that they leave JHUVM as one file and are exploded into separate files close to Harvard. While that's doesn't completely rule out other sites, it seemed reasonable to start looking for the problem at Harvard under those circumstances. And after several letters went unacknowledged, it seemed entirely possible that e-mail problems may well be ignored at Harvard. I mean, if requests for help in finding/fixing bugs are ignored (which is what I sent initially), then it seems plausible that e-mail functionality is not a high priority. > If you managed to >eliminate them, then you should restate the problem in more succinct >form and send the report to the postmaster(s) again. If you tried but >failed, then you should restate the problem and report it instead to >the postmaster at BUACCA. If you didn't even try, then it's not really >surprising that you got ignored. As I said before, I've sent many letters to Harvard postmasters and got no response. I completely agree with you about not complaining about a specific site causing a problem without attempting to isolate the problem first. I believe that it was/is reasonable to assume that the mis-handling of the e-mail is at Harvard. Therefore, I was attempting to find a better contact at Harvard by posting to this group. My apologies if any of you feel this has been an inappropriate use of this list. But for what it's worth, I *did* get the name of a good contact at Harvard, and quite independently received the following note from Harvard. > John Many thanks to those (including Scott) who sent the prompt replies, -jj -------------- forwarded mail follows: *Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 20:32:40 -0400 *From: [log in to unmask] *To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask] *Subject: mailer problems at Harvard * * *We are just about to replace that software with a new version that should *Fix the addressing problems. The current schedule (revised this am, *calls for this to be done within about 2 weeks) * *Scott