On Mon, 13 Feb 1995, Eric Thomas wrote:
 
> >(1) I wish that the keyword "Notify=" could designate specific addresses
>
> It does!
 
Thanks!
 
 
> >(2) I believe that notices about  "your list is being HELD" currently go
> >to the Errors-to  address? ...
>
> I'm not sure how  it worked before the code was  converted from REXX, but
> in 1.8b these  errors go to the  list owner except in the  case where the
> daily threshold is exceeded. This goes to "Errors-To=" because this error
> is raised by the  code that looks for mailing loops  (it's the "last line
> of defense", so to speak).
 
I see.  And I suppose it would be difficult to re-write the part of the
code dealing with notification for exceeding daily threshold.  (Please
note, I have NO idea how much trouble making such an upgrade would be.)
 
I hope I've made clear the usefulness of such a separate keyword.  So
often, error notices about "user unknown" are false and disappear of
their own accord after 3 days or so that I have made a habit of reviewing
error notices less often than twice a week.  But if a "HOLD" notice is
buried in there with the rest of the other errors, then my list may be
held for an inordinately long time before I discover that it needs to be
freed.  I've come across this situation recently because I've twice had
to bump up my Daily-Threshold limit within the space of a couple of
weeks due to my list being held.  If I hadn't been doing my error
management with lucky timing, I might have chalked up my list mail delay to
*network* glitches that would "iron themselves out in good time".
 
So, is this worth creating a separate keyword to direct HOLD notices?
(At the least, I wish that HOLD notices wouldn't be always thrown in with
all other error mail, since I perceive an important inconsistency in the
timing needs of handling hold notices vs. bounce mail.)
 
-- Roger Burns    [log in to unmask]