>
> Neal,
>
> It looks to me like Shane's mailer got really confused by the invalid
> return address on the first message quoted and dumped the error message
> back to some return address it already knew about (probably just the
> last one it had successfully grabbed).  Then it somehow managed to lose
> track of the boundaries between messages and sent you everything that
> was in its input stream at the time.  (Since the other included messages
> include the SMTP "envelope" lines MAIL FROM: and RCPT TO:, I think this
> is an SMTP input stream rather than a mail notebook or log.)
>
> About 200 lines down, there is an instance on a message from your list
> followed by a message with the invalid return address in the envelope.
> Perhaps this is the actual cause of the error and Shane's mailer was
> trying to give some context in the surrounding mail stream.  That doesn't
> seem good for mail confidentiality, but somebody may have thought it was
> really neat for debugging.
>
> Mark R. Williamson, Rice U., Houston TX; [log in to unmask]
>
  Actually, now that you mention keeping track of boundaries the
  problem has the same surface value as the hidden character at the
  beginning of the header which gave a mixed boundary message which
  resulted in long confusing headers, but also in part of the text
  being in an unreadable format. I think the character sets were wrong
  or shifted as the text appeared on screen. I think that part of the
  message was that there was a missing boundary separator. This was
  bascially caused by the hidden character which made the message
  behave like a corrupt text in the reader. -- Paul.
 
--
 
Dr. Paul S. di Virgilio,  University of Toronto  [log in to unmask]