At 11:38 01/20/96 EST, you wrote: >On Sat, 20 Jan 1996 02:15:18 +0200 Nicolas Graner <[log in to unmask]> >said: > >>Errors matching a pattern would be handled appropriately by auto-delete, >>others would be sent to the owner. Is there any difficulty in >>implementing this? > >Yes: you need an e-mail address to use the auto-delete function. It's not >good enough to recognize the message as a delivery error (which LISTSERV >does without problem), you need to figure out which is the bouncing >address. Take a look at a the bounces you got recently. How many mention >a slew of totally unrelated, "innocent" e-mail addresses along with the >one that failed? > Okay, I'm a newbie and haven't seen the realm of messages we're talking about, but I have deleted several thousand error messages, so I'm starting to feel somewhat competant in this area. Again, let me quote an example of an offending message: >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 10:33:06 -0500 >From: "L-Soft list server at AMERICAN.EDU (1.8b)" > <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: LAWSCH-L: error report from MAIL.KORNET.NM.KR >To: [log in to unmask] >X-LSV-ListID: None >Content-Length: 6006 > >The enclosed mail file has been identified as a delivery error for list >LAWSCH-L because it was sent to the reserved 'owner-lawsch-l' mailbox. > >------------------------------ Message in error ------------------------------- >Received: (from daemon@localhost) by atlanta.american.edu (8.6.12/8.6.11) id > KAA112154 for [log in to unmask]; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 > 10:32:44 -0500 >Received: from mail.kornet.nm.kr (mail.kornet.nm.kr [168.126.63.5]) by > atlanta.american.edu (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id KAA114922 for > <[log in to unmask]>; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 10:32:35 -0500 >Received: from localhost (localhost) by mail.kornet.nm.kr (8.6.10/8.6.9) with > internal id AAE11040; Sun, 21 Jan 1996 00:31:32 +0900 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 00:31:32 +0900 >From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Returned mail: warning: cannot send message for 4 hours >Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="AAE11040.822151892/mail.kornet.nm.kr" > > >This is a MIME-encapsulated message > >--AAE11040.822151892/mail.kornet.nm.kr > > ********************************************** > ** THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY ** > ** YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE ** > ********************************************** > >The original message was received at Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:57:31 +0900 >from atlanta.american.edu [147.9.1.6] > > ----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- ><[log in to unmask]> (transient failure) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ><[log in to unmask]>... Deferred: Connection timed out with hyangdan.hit.co.kr. >Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours >Will keep trying until message is 5 days old > Now, this format is very familiar to me, after seeing it so many times. I now know exactly where to look for the offending sender: the line after " ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----" So it's so hard to tell LISTSERV to add the address after this line if it's found that it's not worth adding a user-requested feature? Again, I am not saying L-Soft has a requirement to do this, just that their customers are asking for it. Philo ====================================================================== Philip B Janus || [log in to unmask] || How can I be in such a mesh of 1E GULC <*> || unlikeliness? http://www.radix.net/~philo || ======================================================================