On Mon, 11 May 1992 14:20:32 EDT, Elliott Parker <3ZLUFUR@CMUVM> wrote:
>Could someone tell me how to interpret the appended error msg?
I would start from the "bottom", and work up. See below.
> I'm pretty sure the invalid user is not at UMICH. I've started
>getting a lot of these. How do I find out the userid to delete them?
>Who do I contact to get it straightened out?
16. Contact 'LISTSERV@MSU' in order to get a list-of-subscribers who give
either UMICH or WAYNEST1 as an address, i.e.,
[log in to unmask] nancy florida
[log in to unmask] hilmy jamaee
[log in to unmask] Christopher Alhambra
[log in to unmask] herman surjono
[log in to unmask] Jeffrey Winters
[log in to unmask] phyllisis [log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask] Subronto Saleh
[log in to unmask] Thomas Williamson
[log in to unmask] Daniel Arianto Prakarsa
USER2FKC@UMICHUM Richard Bernhard
USER2FLG@UMICHUM Lily Woo
USER6CLE@UMICHUM Bruce W. Irish
USER65CQ@UMICHUM David Dettman
USER6885@UMICHUM jim bulkley
EMCBRID@WAYNEST1 Elizabeth McBride
Note that U.M. has not registered the fact that 'UM.CC.UMICH.EDU'
is the Internet-alias for the 'UMICHUM' BITNET node. Therefore,
LISTSERV@MSU will ask the nearest BITNET-to-Internet gateway to handle
all the subscribers in the 'UMICH.EDU' domain. Thus, these IDs can't be the
ones which are the cause of your problem. Since the LISTSERV software
also is installed at WAYNEST1 (as a "backbone" LISTSERV site), it's highly
likely that LISTSERV@MSU has sent a "job" to LISTSERV@WAYNEST1, indicating that
LISTSERV@WAYNEST1 is required to assist in the "distribution" of the posting.
LISTSERV@WAYNEST1 will have determined that there are no other "backbone"
servers between WAYNEST1 and UMICHUM, and will thus pass a copy of the E-mail
to MAILER@WAYNEST1 for "final" delivery. The "problem" subscriber could
either be Elizabeth@Wayne_State, or one (or more!) of the five IDs at the
'UMICHUM' BITNET node -- despite your suggestion that this isn't likely.
Contact the postmaster at UMICHUM ('POSTMAST@UMICHUM'),
and have him/her verify the subscriber IDs,
or send individual "test" E-mail to each of the IDs,
and see if UMICHUM returns any of the mailings to you.
>
>Received: from MSU.BITNET by CMUVM.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8455;
> Sun, 10 May 92 14:17:28 EDT
15. MAILER@CMUVM received the file from MAILER@MSU very quickly,
because CMUVM and MSU are adjacent BITNET nodes, and their wall-clocks
are only about 15 seconds different.
>Received: by MSU (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 1499; Sun, 10 May 92 14:16:56 EDT
14. MAILER@MSU received the file from LISTSERV@MSU "instantly".
>Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 14:16:56 -0400
13. LISTSERV@MSU processed the "bounce" message about 30 seconds
after receiving it from [log in to unmask]
>From: Revised List Processor (1.7c) <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Delivery error notice sent to list SEASIA-L
>To: Elliott Parker <[log in to unmask]>
>X-LSV-ListID: None
>
> ...
>------------------------- Message in error (46 lines) -------------------------
>Received: from UMICHUM.BITNET by MSU.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) with BSMTP
> id 1486; Sun, 10 May 92 14:15:30 EDT
12. Date/time stamp of arrival-time of file at MAILER@MSU,
less than 1 minute after UMICHUM sent it, i.e., no other BITNET
traffic impeded the note's travel across the two BITNET links.
>Date: Sun, 10 May 92 14:15:02 EDT
11. Note that '14:15:02' is "earlier" than '14:15:39',
i.e., UMICHUM rejected the posting **before** the original posting
was received by LISTSERVUMSU. Oh well, blame the operators at
UMICHUM and MSU for not synchronizing their wall-clocks! :-)))
>From: Postmaster <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Undelivered mail
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Your message <920510.130337.CDT.S110374@UMRVMA> was rejected by
>[log in to unmask] because:
> Invalid name
10. Of course, the U. of Michigan system runs the MTS (Michigan Time Sharing)
Operating System.
Don't you wish that it would have shown the "invalid name"!
9. Note the shortness of the BITNET path: WAYNEST1 -> UMICHRLY -> UMICHUM.
There is probably little "traffic" on these links on a Sunday.
Note that the wall-clock at WAYNEST1 is "ahead" of the wall-clock
at UMICHRLY, i.e., '17:13:40' versus '17:10:18' (when I queried them just
now) so an extremely "speedy" delivery is quite possible! :-)
Due to the "closeness" of the BITNET nodes UMICHUM and WAYNEST1, it is
reasonable to make a hypothesis that some person could have accounts on both
machines, and could be 'FORWARD'-ing E-mail from one system to the other.
>
>------------------------------ Rejected Mail Item
>------------------------------
>Received: from WAYNEST1.BITNET by CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU (Mailer R2.04) with BSMTP
> id 1031; Sun, 10 May 92 14:15:39 EDT
8. Date/time when MAILER@WAYNEST1 received the posted item.
Rhetorical question: why did MAILER@WAYNEST1 get to handle this file?
(Certainly, LISTSERV does not use "intermediate" MAILERs,
so LISTSERV must think that the "final" destination is a user at WAYNEST1!)
It's about 1 minute later, but WAYNEST1 and MSU are BITNET "neighbours",
so this small difference is reasonable, especially on a quiet Sunday.
Ask Dennis Boone <DRBMAINT@MSU> or Richard Wiggins <RWWMAINT@MSU>
to examine the console-log for LISTSERV@MSU, **if** you need to determine
the date/time when LISTSERV@MSU "posted" the item.
>Received: from MSU.BITNET by MSU.BITNET (LISTSERV release 1.7c) with NJE id
> 8512 for [log in to unmask]; Sun, 10 May 1992 14:14:47 -0400
7. Date/time when LISTSERV@MSU received the E-mail from MAILER@MSU,
i.e., about 1 minute after it arrived at MSU.
>Received: from UMRVMA.UMR.EDU by MSU.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) with BSMTP
> id 1456; Sun, 10 May 92 14:13:50 EDT
6. Date/time when MAILER@MSU actually received the E-mail from [log in to unmask]
(MRVMA -> MIZZOU1 -> UIUCVMD -> PSUVM -> OHSTMVA -> UOFT01 -> WAYNEST1 -> MSU)
i.e., about 61 minutes after MAILER@UMRVMA started processing it.
>Received: from UMRVMA (S110374) by UMRVMA.UMR.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
> 9767; Sun, 10 May 92 13:12:01 CDT
5. Date/time when MAILER@UMRVMA was asked to deliver the mail to 'SEASIA-L@MSU'
i.e., about 9 minutes after Alvin started composing the note.
>X-Acknowledge-To: <S110374@UMRVMA>
4. Poster requested an "acknowledgement" (Alvin was probably using Rice MAIL
to compose and send the note).
>Message-ID: <920510.130337.CDT.S110374@UMRVMA>
3. Confirming evidence of the validity of the date/time stamps.
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seasia-l
>Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 13:03:37 CDT
2. Time-stamp when the poster began to compose the note.
>Reply-To: Southeast Asia Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender: Southeast Asia Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Alvin Say Lye Ow <[log in to unmask]>
1. User ID and node ID of the "poster" -- not of the "problem" recipient.
>Subject: Final Exams
>To: Multiple recipients of list SEASIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
>
>[text deleted]
|
