LSTSRV-L Archives

LISTSERV Site Administrators' Forum

LSTSRV-L

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Parts/Attachments: text/plain (24 lines)
Print Reply
Sender:
The Revised LISTSERV Distribution List <LSTSRV-L@EB0UB011>
Subject:
X-To:
Network MAIL discussions <MAIL-L@BITNIC>, List server discussions <LSTSRV-L@UIUCVMD>, MailBook discussions <MAILBOOK@RICE>, The Revised LISTSERV distribution list <LSTSRV-L@FRECP11>, $PEER$ <LSTSRV-L@EB0UB011>
Date:
Thu, 25 Sep 86 21:48:55 CDT
From:
Phil Howard <PHIL@UIUCVMD>
Reply-to:
The Revised LISTSERV Distribution List <LSTSRV-L@EB0UB011>
Has anyone ever looked into the problem of returned mail being redistributed
over distribution lists?
 
--  So many mailers on so many systems send the mail back to either a
--  person who does not know anything about the destination it was
--  distributed to, or else sends it back to the server and everyone
--  gets it.  ARPA mailers are most guilty of this.
 
--  Also, various systems where the mailer actually opens a mail file
--  in the user's directory are more prone to this problem because of
--  the fact that this file can be easily munged.  These systems need
--  to address this problem most.
 
Clearly a standard is needed so that this problem is resolved.
It is quite annoying to get this.  Whenever such a thing happens
on distribution lists I maintain, the offending user destination,
or all destinations at the offending node, are summarily removed.
The usual notices are then sent about the removal, but they will
probably be rejected as well.
 
Another nasty problem is the rejected due to mailer not being able
to connect to the destination.  Maybe we should impose a RSCS/JES
style of store and forwarding on our ARPA neighbors!!

ATOM RSS1 RSS2