Eric,
 
I'm not sure I was clear about my suggestion.  Joan Korenman
<[log in to unmask]> put it this way:
 
> I, too, would find it VERY useful to be able to tell from the
> subject header whether this was a new problem or the 35th bounce
> from the same site.  Like Dan, I now have to read each message
> down to the second screen.
 
We also both feel strongly enough about this to write twice to
urge you to add information to the subject line indicating the
originating system of suspected delivery error notices.
 
The context in which I originally wrote was a discussion of
addresses for automatic replies.  For this purpose, a complete
address is obviously necessary.  But I just need to be able to
tell systems apart.  The first twenty characters of the address
would be plenty.
 
I am owner of 11 lists (with two other people).  I have received
_thousands_ of messages with the subject line "Delivery error
notice sent to <listname>."  Just this week I received a batch of
over 200 error notices that had apparently been generated by a
single garbled message from one of my lists.  I deleted most of
them without reading them.  I hope that none of the messages I
deleted was from some other system that I might have been able to
help.
 
I suspect that most owners get "Delivery error notices" quite
regularly.  It might help the new owner during the first week to
have the subject line say "Delivery error notice sent to
<listname>," but by the second week something much shorter would
do.
 
Joan suggested:
 
> >4 IN%"[log in to unmask]  4-AUG-1992  Error notice from: [log in to unmask]
>
>      As the example shows, this omits the wording to which Eric objected
> but includes enough of even the longer "mailer-daemon" addresses so that
> listowners could usually tell from just the subject header whether this
> was a new problem.  It doesn't say which list the message concerns, but my
> guess is that that's less important information than whom the message is
> from.
 
I would find it useful to continue to have the listname in the
subject line.  It helps me to know which list is having problems.
My revised suggestion is:
 
     Subject:  <listname> reject from: <address-of-rejected-msg>
 
I think this would be clear to new owners.  It indicates that a
message sent to the list address was rejected by the LISTSERVer.
The body of the message explains why the message was rejected;
this information is not needed in the subject line.
 
Here is an example of what this would look like if mail to me
bounced:
 
     Subject:  LSTOWN-L reject from: [log in to unmask]
               ----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|
                       10        20        30        40
 
Even when the subject line is truncated at 40 characters, enough
would remain to identify a batch of messages as all coming from
the same source.  This would still be true with the longer
"mailer-daemon" addresses.
 
Of course, I'd rather have:
 
     Subject:  LSTOWN-L reject: [log in to unmask]
               ----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|
 
This would let me see even more of the address.
 
I estimate that this change would save me at least 25 percent of
the time that I spend dealing with the mail problems on my lists.
At present, I have to wait for two screens of information at 2400
baud to find out that a message is from a system that I have
already dealt with.  This is a terrible waste of my time.
 
                          Peace,  Dan
 
<<  Daniel D. Wheeler          Internet:  [log in to unmask]  >>
<<  University of Cincinnati     Bitnet:  wheeler@ucbeh       >>