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