> > Neal, > > It looks to me like Shane's mailer got really confused by the invalid > return address on the first message quoted and dumped the error message > back to some return address it already knew about (probably just the > last one it had successfully grabbed). Then it somehow managed to lose > track of the boundaries between messages and sent you everything that > was in its input stream at the time. (Since the other included messages > include the SMTP "envelope" lines MAIL FROM: and RCPT TO:, I think this > is an SMTP input stream rather than a mail notebook or log.) > > About 200 lines down, there is an instance on a message from your list > followed by a message with the invalid return address in the envelope. > Perhaps this is the actual cause of the error and Shane's mailer was > trying to give some context in the surrounding mail stream. That doesn't > seem good for mail confidentiality, but somebody may have thought it was > really neat for debugging. > > Mark R. Williamson, Rice U., Houston TX; [log in to unmask] > Actually, now that you mention keeping track of boundaries the problem has the same surface value as the hidden character at the beginning of the header which gave a mixed boundary message which resulted in long confusing headers, but also in part of the text being in an unreadable format. I think the character sets were wrong or shifted as the text appeared on screen. I think that part of the message was that there was a missing boundary separator. This was bascially caused by the hidden character which made the message behave like a corrupt text in the reader. -- Paul. -- Dr. Paul S. di Virgilio, University of Toronto [log in to unmask]