On Mon, 1 May 1995 10:02:14 +0100 [log in to unmask] said: >The main problem here is that we want to be RFC compliant, and there is >no RFC which dictates a different procedure on sending warning messages >to list mail. The main problem is that you obviously have no intention of trying to solve this problem. It's true that there is no RFC that says you shouldn't send warning messages for delayed messages to a list. But then, there's no RFC that says you should send warning messages at all, or when, or under what circumstances. This is entirely optional. If you stopped sending warnings to lists I would be highly surprised if anyone complained that you're violating a RFC, or could point out a RFC that says you have to send warnings to lists. The bottom line is that this discussion, as it currently stands, is getting nowhere. Technical solutions are available and conceptually easy to implement: no warnings to owner-*@*. By "conceptually easy" I mean that if you're writing mail software, it's an easy change to make. If you're using software for which you don't have the source code, it may be a totally different matter, and your vendor may or may not listen. But, anyway, I don't see any point in continuing the current exchange. If you're willing to change your software to help everyone, the solution is simple and has been proposed and would actually solve the problem. If you're only interested in trying to convince us that you're doing everything by the book and we're making insane claims, you're just wasting our time and I don't see any need to continue along these lines. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Eric