June, this got rejected because of 11 'To:' in your mail. The default
limit is 10. I've removed a few colons to fix that. /Eric
 
Date:      Fri,  2 Oct 87 15:19:59 PDT
From:      "June Genis" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:   re: Forwading Mail to Listserv
 
I believe that the problem which Duane Weaver refers to is caused by
code which Eric included in the latest release to prevent mail loops
caused by the EAN mail processors.  Basically he is disallowing the
occurrence of any other lines that look like To: headers.  I got
caught by this last week because one of our local mail agents throws
in and extra To: line at the bottom of a message. (Don't ask why --
it's a long story.  :-) It occurred to me this morning that by
Eric's description of the rule he's using that it would likely get
into trouble with any forwarded mail.  I wrote to him about that
today but haven't heard back yet.  Below are some extracts of the
discussions we've had about this.
 
[I've added ">" to all lines below to get them past LISTSERV.  I
haven't even been getting a bounce message BTW.  I just never see
anything coming thru.]
 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>[25151] MON 09/28/87 13:12 FROM [log in to unmask]: TO problem; 39 LINES
>        (DELETE 10/04/87)
>
>Received: by FRECP11 (Mailer X1.25) id 1771; Mon, 28 Sep 87 21:13:37 SET
>Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1987 21:06 SET
>From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@FRECP11>
>Subject:      TO problem
>
>What is relevant is that you have a 'TO:' and the address of the list on the
>same line. What I'm trying to protect from is EAN (the future mail standard)
>bullsh*t like this:
>
>Date: azertyuiop@&
>From: EAN Mailing System Trouble Reporter <EAN-MAIL@azertyuio>
>To: yourid
>
>Your mail was not delivered. Reason for non-delivery: auto-forwarded.
>
>----------- Non delivered mail follows ----------------
>Date: kept intact
>Sender: whatever was in the FROM field originally
>To: userid@node of the list, dunno if it comes from REPLY-TO or SENDER
>From: whatever was in the SENDER field originally
>Apparently-To: whatever was in the TO field originally, ie the guy you wanted
>               to send to
>
>If I remove the TO check, I may still be able to catch EAN crap with the
>FROM check. But I prefer to catch something twice than not at all. And the
>argument that "RFC822 allows it" is irrelevant: RFC822 is stupid enough not to
>specify any format for rejection mail, so swapping the contents of FROM and
>SENDER and TO in the copy of the original mailfile is perfectly legal and you
>cannot put an official blame on EAN. In any case, LISTSERV must be able to
>stop that. And my gosh, if there had but been one line in RFC822 saying that
>delivery notices must bear a "Delivery-Error: blurb" in the header, the
>problem would never even have existed /Eric
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>FORWARDED ON 10/02/87 11:44 FROM GA.JRG: How would listserv deal with this?
>
>Eric,
>
>Pretend for a minute that you are the MAIL-L or INFO-NETS list. It
>seems reasonable to me that someone might forward on the mail below
>to such a list with a comment like "I know FOOBAR exits.  Does anyone
>know why this bounced?".  I presume that the extra To: line in the
>text of the bounced message will also mess up LISTSERV, no? (The one
>at the very bottom is of course from EMS as I'm forwarding this, but
>just look at the one in the middle for now).  I don't think you
>want to say that you can't do things like this.
>
>/June
>
>To:  ERIC@FRECP11
>
>[25215] FRI 10/02/87 11:34 FROM [log in to unmask] "Mail Delivery
 Subsystem":
>        Returned mail: Host unknown; 15 LINES
>
>Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri,  2 Oct 87 11:34:14 PDT
>Date: Fri, 2 Oct 87 11:32:57 PDT
>From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
>To [log in to unmask]
>
>   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>550 x@foobar... Host unknown
>
>   ----- Unsent message follows -----
>Date: Fri,  2 Oct 87 11:27:30 PDT
>From: June Genis <[log in to unmask]>
>To  x@foobar
>
>just an example of bounced mail
>