Since I have not seen a discussion on LISTOWN-L about this problem, and I suspect that many of the subscribers here are not on LISTSRV-L I am posting the following exechange with the originator of a major problem on the SAS-L list last night. I received over 200 copies of this file. Because of the number of subscribers to SAS-L on our machine, it broke sendmail because of the large number of short mail messages arriving as part of the same connection with our gateway, and I understand that the spool at NIH was so clogged that they had to shut down for a while this morning. I understand from the notes below that Eric is aware of the problem and is fixing the problem, but you probably need to be careful if you have files=yes defined for your list. -phil Forwarded message: > From <@UVVM.UVIC.CA:[log in to unmask]> Thu Apr 15 15:57:51 1993 > Date: Thu, 15 Apr 93 13:51:08 PDT > From: Melvin Klassen <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: files, files, anyone have files ? > To: "J. Philip Miller" <phil@wubios> > In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 15 Apr 1993 14:50:30 -0500 (CDT) > > On Thu, 15 Apr 1993 14:50:30 -0500 (CDT) you said: > >> I sent exactly **one** copy of this file > >> to all the subscribers of the SAS-L mailing list. > >> > >Melvin, I have not yet seen a discussion of this on the LISTOWN-L list yet, > >so am trying to understand a little more of what happened. > > > >1) why did you send it as a file rather than as a piece of mail? > I sent **one** file, because the list allows files. > > Only those users who **want** "files" received the files. > Send a 'SET SAS-L NOFILES' command to LISTSERV, > if you don't want to receive files. > > >2) was the comment about how sending a file could lead to a bitnet worm part > >of what you sent? > When a list allows files, then a malicious user could send a "worm", > like the famous Internet worm, to each subscriber of SAS-L. > If some user "receives" the file, and runs it, then "results can be > unpredictable". :-) > > >3) was the effect that you observed what you were referring to in #2. > No! The "multiple-copy" phenomena was **quite** unexpected. > > For discussion, see the 'LSTSRV-L' mailing-list, or ... > --- > Sender: "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7" <[log in to unmask]> > From: Valdis Kletnieks <[log in to unmask]> > Organization: Virginia Polytechnic Institute > Subject: Listserv 1.7F and problems with looping? > > It appears that there may be a bug in the handling of peered lists that > have "Files=Yes" specified. We have had a locally peered list loop on > us twice when a file was punched to the list - this was a "known working" > application that distributed our user services newsletter every week for > the last several months - it broke when 1.7F came out. However, being a > weekly thing, we didn't isolate it immediately, and figured it for a fluke. > > Tonight, the SAS-L list did the same thing, spawning off at least 150 copies > of file. I've forwarded copies of the problem file at various stages of > the loop to Eric. > > Valdis Kletnieks > Computer Systems Engineer > Virginia Polytechnic Institute > ========================================================================= > Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 20:54:11 MST > Sender: "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7" <[log in to unmask]> > From: Bob Kaneshige <[log in to unmask]> > Organization: Computing Services, Arizona State University > Subject: Being bombarded!! > > > > Can someone stop this bombardment that is being caused by SAS-L? > > Bob > -- J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 [log in to unmask] - (314) 362-3617 [362-2694(FAX)]