On Mon, 24 Feb 1992 09:55:07 CST Juan M. Courcoul said: >On Fri, 21 Feb 1992 15:29:19 EST Ratilal Haria said: >>Mark Wilson ([log in to unmask]) suggested using LOOPCHECK=NONE >>setting on each list that you control. Since I have only a few lists >>I control it will do. > >*flame on* > >Yeah, sure, and screw the rest of the network. Like I said in a previous note, I don't think anyone should turn off full loop checking unless they have a compelling reason to do so, and they understand what doing so implies. If a subset of your list users are using brain-damaged software and you think it's impossible for them to learn how to work around it's limitations, then perhaps you need to change the loop checking setting. *But* please don't simply turn off loop checking indescriminately. As Juan points out, it's not fair to the other systems that have to handle your mail traffic. Nodes between you and some major gateway machine shouldn't have to to waste machine/network resources propogating mailing loops simply because your users won't learn how to use their software properly. And I have to agree with Juan again when he says you will be hard pressed to catch mailing loops before they get ugly. Aside from the fact that they'll probably crop up Friday afternoon before a 4 day weekend :), you'll be amazed at the number of mail messages that can be generated between when you leave in the evening and when you return to work the next day. I really haven't said anything more than Juan Courcoul did. But I felt compelled to voice my opinion just in case anyone thought he was the only one that objected to the idea of people turning off loop detection without careful consideration first. That code was added for a very good reason. Make sure you understand what it does before you turn it off. And please remember that what you do can have serious consequences for other people on the network, so if possible, keep non-loop checking lists *local*. If you want to play in the network sandbox, don't let your cats use your corner as a litterbox. :) -jj