> >One idea I have would be not to send warning messages in > >response to mail that has a `Precedence: bulk' header. Would this solve > >problems as far as you can see ? > > This would work for mailing list software that inserts this header. > Majordomo-operated lists seem to do so (though I believe this can be > configured on a per-list basis, so it is probably not guaranteed). > Listserv-run lists don't seem to, and anyway this would only work if all > list management software adopted the same system (or at least a small > number of different systems) for identifying list-based mail. I don't > think we are there yet. Perhaps others on the lstown-l list can add > more insight to this. Conceptually, this seems to be the direction to > go--as other threads have mentioned in the past, there seem to be > different error acknowledgement levels that are appropriate for > different classes of mail. There's work well under way within the IETF on standardized formats for delivery status notifications (i.e., successful delivery, failed delivery, delayed delivery). The formats are recogizable by machines and can be tied back to particular subscribers on a mailing list. There are also ways to specify what delivery status notifications are desired. I can provide references to the current Internet drafts for anyone interested. Roger Fajman Telephone: +1 301 402 4265 National Institutes of Health BITNET: RAF@NIHCU Bethesda, Maryland, USA Internet: [log in to unmask]