At 11:38 01/20/96 EST, you wrote:
>On Sat,  20 Jan 1996  02:15:18 +0200 Nicolas  Graner <[log in to unmask]>
>said:
>
>>Errors matching a pattern would be handled appropriately by auto-delete,
>>others  would  be  sent  to  the  owner.  Is  there  any  difficulty  in
>>implementing this?
>
>Yes: you need an e-mail address to use the auto-delete function. It's not
>good enough to recognize the message  as a delivery error (which LISTSERV
>does  without problem),  you need  to figure  out which  is the  bouncing
>address. Take a look at a the  bounces you got recently. How many mention
>a slew of  totally unrelated, "innocent" e-mail addresses  along with the
>one that failed?
>
 
Okay, I'm a newbie and haven't seen the realm of messages we're talking
about, but I have deleted several thousand error messages, so I'm starting
to feel somewhat competant in this area.
 
Again, let me quote an example of an offending message:
 
>Date:         Sat, 20 Jan 1996 10:33:06 -0500
>From: "L-Soft list server at AMERICAN.EDU (1.8b)"
>              <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      LAWSCH-L: error report from MAIL.KORNET.NM.KR
>To: [log in to unmask]
>X-LSV-ListID: None
>Content-Length: 6006
>
>The enclosed mail file has been identified as a delivery error for list
>LAWSCH-L because it was sent to the reserved 'owner-lawsch-l' mailbox.
>
>------------------------------ Message in error -------------------------------
>Received: (from daemon@localhost) by atlanta.american.edu (8.6.12/8.6.11) id
>          KAA112154 for [log in to unmask]; Sat, 20 Jan 1996
>          10:32:44 -0500
>Received: from mail.kornet.nm.kr (mail.kornet.nm.kr [168.126.63.5]) by
>          atlanta.american.edu (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id KAA114922 for
>          <[log in to unmask]>; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 10:32:35 -0500
>Received: from localhost (localhost) by mail.kornet.nm.kr (8.6.10/8.6.9) with
>          internal id AAE11040; Sun, 21 Jan 1996 00:31:32 +0900
>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 00:31:32 +0900
>From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Returned mail: warning: cannot send message for 4 hours
>Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="AAE11040.822151892/mail.kornet.nm.kr"
>
>
>This is a MIME-encapsulated message
>
>--AAE11040.822151892/mail.kornet.nm.kr
>
>    **********************************************
>    **      THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY      **
>    **  YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE  **
>    **********************************************
>
>The original message was received at Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:57:31 +0900
>from atlanta.american.edu [147.9.1.6]
>
>   ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
><[log in to unmask]>  (transient failure)
>
>   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
><[log in to unmask]>... Deferred: Connection timed out with
hyangdan.hit.co.kr.
>Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours
>Will keep trying until message is 5 days old
>
 
Now, this format is very familiar to me, after seeing it so many times. I
now know exactly where to look for the offending sender: the line after "
----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----"
 
So it's so hard to tell LISTSERV to add the address after this line if it's
found that it's not worth adding a user-requested feature?
 
Again, I am not saying L-Soft has a requirement to do this, just that their
customers are asking for it.
 
Philo
 
 
 ======================================================================
 Philip B Janus               ||
 [log in to unmask]              || How can I be in such a mesh of
 1E GULC          <*>         ||     unlikeliness?
 http://www.radix.net/~philo  ||
 ======================================================================