>: for the following reason: "Sender:", "From:" or "Reply-To:" field pointing >to >: the list has been found in mail body. >and the only field that could be construed as 'pointing to the list' >is "To:" which was quoted. Is it the error text which is wrong, or >is the logic which caused it to bounce in error? >(I believe this is version 1.8b.) Neither: it is the user that is "wrong" based upon the collective net ;-) experience of 10 years (Happy Birthday L-Soft) of running LISTSERV on Bitnet and Internet where e-mail loops used to be the norm for mailing list managers that ignored LISTSERV's logic. >A second question would be "why is this going to the list owner >instead of the sender?" It is the sender who has control of the Because it is a loop error that LISTSERV is detecting, not some some user error. >content, and this bounce requires the list owner to write back to >the sender and explain things, or else, puzzled by the non-appearance >of his message, the sender will just keep doing it. "My" list >is only 70-75 people, but this could be a major headache for large >lists, I would think. That's why I send them a canned (boilerplate) response. Most people will (eventually) learn how to interact proplerly with mailing lists. >Third: I don't see what the problem is with included headers pointing >back to the list might be; it's *just slightly* problematic if at the >beginning of a line. If the concern is something autoreplying and >quoting everything *including* headers, then why is the ">" quote >OK but not the "> " quote? Not being a LISTSERV developer, I can't say for sure but my guess is that the problematic behaviour (loops) was more often than not detected with the one style rather than the other style of quoting/forwarding. >Yes, I've read 9605-UD-02; it says "what" (i.e., this will happen, >unless the quoted headers are quoted by ">" instead of "> ") but >it doesn't say *why* and the logic completely escapes me. >The text in 9605-UD-02 (11.2 at the end) which says "The ultimate >solution to the problem is to warn subscribers..." seems to me to >be a copout for not making LISTSERV a bit more intelligent. >OK, your turn... convince me I'm wrong. I'm sure I haven't convinced you, but *I'm* sure glad that LISTSERV is doing the "right thing" -- I seldom have to deal with loops any more, though I do have to deal with the occasional "error" generated by the loop-detection. Proper netiquette is its own reward: less CPU time, less archive space, less bandwidth, less time downloading/reading. Here is the boilerplate that I use to inform the user how to interact with the list: Dear If you want this distributed to all of xxxxxx-L, you will need to remove the original "headers" that you included in your reply: the software does not allow you to include them, thinking that it is a "loop." Additionally, please remove all other original signatures and text NOT essential for context -- sometimes all you will need is a relevant SUBJECT: RE: line in your reply. Otherwise, simply forward to your intended correspondent. Thanks. -- co-owner: INFOSYS, TQM-L, CPARK-L, ERAPPA-L, JANITORS, LDBASE-L, et -L URL:mailto:[log in to unmask] "Don't drink n' drive on the info. super hi-way"