On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 07:27:15 -0600 Steve Hirby <[log in to unmask]> said: >> 3. don't blame LISTSERV's "auto-delete" function for something >> which is totally beyond its control. > > Re: 3, Seems to me that there is a legitimate question whether >LISTSERV, in implementing auto-delete, should knowingly rely on >information that is unreliable. The intention of auto-delete is to save >listowners work; deleting in error based on reliable information has the >opposite effect. That's all fine and well, but unfortunately LISTSERV hasn't got the beginning of a possibility to classify delivery reports as "reliable" vs "not reliable". We human beings may know from painful experience that Joe Professor has a mail system that lies, but how would LISTSERV know that? This particular example was about name servers. The DNS distinguishes between "authoritative" and "non-authoritative" replies. The former mean "I know for a fact that..." and the latter mean "I believe that..., for a final answer you'll need to ask that server". For any given domain, there is a very small amount of servers with authority to make authoritative statements. They are, by definition, the most reliable source of information about a domain. Where are you supposed to turn to if they start lying? Maybe in 10 years the next version of LISTSERV will make a phone call to the human person in charge of the name server and say "Hi Joe, this is LISTSERV at UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU here. Say, your name server at 131.172.2.1 claims that there is no such host as XXX.YYY.EDU. However, my records indicate a plausible probability that this machine might indeed exist, based on an analysis of common patterns for your domain adjusted by historical data. Could you please find our whether the machine exists or not, and call me at XXXXX when you have an answer? I'll take care of removing the users if that is the case. Ah, and don't forget to fix the name server if it is in error". But today computers don't know how to talk to human beings. Eric