I just received this mail rejection notice and wanted to warn you all.
If I read this right, the mail software at MCIGATEWAY.MCIMAIL.COM is
putting an unusuable address in the From: line of it's delivery errors.
And while I haven't seen one of those messages yet (what's appended
is LISTSERV's response back to MCIGATEWAY.MCIMAIL.COM), I believe
none of LISTSERV's traps are flagging the mail as an error notice.
So, LISTSERV tries to interpret the mail delivery error as commands,
and sends a response, which while is was probably sent to
<[log in to unmask]>, is routed to <[log in to unmask]>
instead. Oddly enough, that's not a valid e-mail address. So it gets
bounced *back* to LISTSERV again, and this time is transfered to the
LISTSERV postmaster. I'm CC'ing a copy of this note to the postmaster
at MCIGATEWAY.MCIMAIL.COM, since I think it's completely unreasonable
to bounce mail sent to the addresses in the header of a delivery notice.
In the meantime, I'd suggest issuing the tried and true,
quiet serve [log in to unmask] off
quiet serve [log in to unmask] off
commands to summarily disregard anything sent from those addresses.
That will also cause LISTSERV to hand the file asis to the LISTSERV
postmaster. If there is anything useful in those notices, then
it's the only way you're going to get to see it. Plus seeing one
of the message intact should shed some light on why LISTSERV isn't
recognizing them as delivery errors.
Fortunately, the errors aren't sent back to the mailing list address,
or the result would be a mailing loop instead of a few needless bounces.
-jj
PS - It's possible that this is actually the result of someone sending
commands to LISTSERV@JHUVM rather than bouncing mailing list mail, but
that doesn't change the fact that there are problems with the headers
of the mail generated by MCIGATEWAY.MCIMAIL.COM. And I've still
blocked mail from the above addresses pending a reply from the people
at MCIMAIL.
>------------------------- Message in error (71 lines) -------------------------
>Return-Path: <>
>Received: from JHUVM (NJE origin JHUSMTP@JHUVM) by JHUVM.HCF.JHU.EDU (LMail
>V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8826; Thu, 27 May 1993 09:26:28 -0400
>Date: Thu, 27 May 93 09:26:27 EDT
>From: <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <@JHUVM.HCF.JHU.EDU:[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Undeliverable Mail
>
>JHUVM.HCF.JHU.EDU unable to deliver following mail to recipient(s):
> <[log in to unmask]>
>JHUVM.HCF.JHU.EDU received negative reply:
>550 (USER) Unknown user name in "[log in to unmask]"
>
> ** Text of Mail follows **
>Received: from JHUVM.HCF.JHU.EDU by JHUVM.HCF.JHU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
> with BSMTP id 8824; Thu, 27 May 93 09:26:25 EDT
>Received: from JHUVM.HCF.JHU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@JHUVM) by
>JHUVM.HCF.JHU.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8823; Thu, 27 May 1993
>09:26:24 -0400
>Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 09:26:24 -0400
>From: BITNET list server at JHUVM (1.7f) <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Output of job "mmdf" from [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Command replies from [log in to unmask] are being forwarded to you.
>
>> for the following Recipients:
>You are not a registered NAD (Node Administrator) for node
>MCIGATEWAY.MCIMAIL.COM. The NADs for this node are
>[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask] and
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Some commands support a FOR option, and that is what you should use whenever
>possible; for instance, "SET listname ... FOR ..." gives list owners full
>control over subscription options on their own lists, and "AFD FOR *@* DEL
>fileid" can be used to delete all subscriptions to a given file. At any
>rate, the "FOR" command is privileged and should only be used for testing or
>debugging purposes. If you are using the "FOR" command for production
>purposes, you are probably doing something wrong.
>
>> To: Natasha Speakman <[log in to unmask]>
>Unknown command - "TO:". Try HELP.
>
>> MCI Mail stated the message could not be sent because:
>Unknown command - "MCI". Try HELP.
>
...text deleted...
|
