On Mon, 13 Feb 1995, Eric Thomas wrote: > >(1) I wish that the keyword "Notify=" could designate specific addresses > > It does! Thanks! > >(2) I believe that notices about "your list is being HELD" currently go > >to the Errors-to address? ... > > I'm not sure how it worked before the code was converted from REXX, but > in 1.8b these errors go to the list owner except in the case where the > daily threshold is exceeded. This goes to "Errors-To=" because this error > is raised by the code that looks for mailing loops (it's the "last line > of defense", so to speak). I see. And I suppose it would be difficult to re-write the part of the code dealing with notification for exceeding daily threshold. (Please note, I have NO idea how much trouble making such an upgrade would be.) I hope I've made clear the usefulness of such a separate keyword. So often, error notices about "user unknown" are false and disappear of their own accord after 3 days or so that I have made a habit of reviewing error notices less often than twice a week. But if a "HOLD" notice is buried in there with the rest of the other errors, then my list may be held for an inordinately long time before I discover that it needs to be freed. I've come across this situation recently because I've twice had to bump up my Daily-Threshold limit within the space of a couple of weeks due to my list being held. If I hadn't been doing my error management with lucky timing, I might have chalked up my list mail delay to *network* glitches that would "iron themselves out in good time". So, is this worth creating a separate keyword to direct HOLD notices? (At the least, I wish that HOLD notices wouldn't be always thrown in with all other error mail, since I perceive an important inconsistency in the timing needs of handling hold notices vs. bounce mail.) -- Roger Burns [log in to unmask]