I've looked through the log files section of the 1.8d manual and have been unable to find a description of why a certain problem we are having here keeps occurring.... It's unfortunately a longish explanation: One of our list owners here received a Daily Error Monitoring Report which stated that the enclosed message had been identified as a possible delivery error notice for the following reason: "Message/Delivery-Status" body part found in the message body. Its probably much easier to include the text here rather than re-type out header information... ------------------------ Message in error (164 lines) ------------------------- Received: from ourserver (ourserver [###.###.###.###]) by our server (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA09969 for <[log in to unmask]>; Mon, 24 May 1999 17:44:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost) by our server (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with internal id RAA09830; Mon, 24 May 1999 17:44:56 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 17:44:56 +1000 (EST) From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON> Message-Id: <199905240744.RAA09830@our server> To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="RAA09830.927531896/our server" Subject: Returned mail: User unknown Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) X-Report-Type: Nondelivery; boundary="> Error description:" An error was detected while processing the enclosed message. A list of the affected recipients follows. This list is in a special format that allows software like LISTSERV to automatically take action on incorrect addresses. --> Error description: Error-For: sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) Error-Code: 3 Error-Text: User unknown Error-End: One error reported. This is a MIME-encapsulated message --RAA09830.927531896/our server The original message was received at Mon, 24 May 1999 17:39:36 +1000 (EST) from vogon [148.145.12.1] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- <problem@address> ----- Transcript of session follows ----- someone@smtpgwy,<[log in to unmask]>, <another.one@SMTPG W Y . A G R IC.NSW.GOV....AGRIC.NSW.GOV.AU>, <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]> >> RCPT To:<problem address> <<< 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) 550 <problem address>... User unknown <--RAA09830.927531896/ourserver Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; our.agric.domain Received-From-MTA: DNS; mailserver Arrival-Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 17:39:36 +1000 (EST) Final-Recipient: RFC822; problem.address@ again Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Remote-MTA: DNS; mail.mcmedia.com.au Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 17:44:41 +1000 (EST) The original message did not contain any header information or message status in it when it was posted to the list. The two replies that were made to it ended up generating these headers and error status in the messages and Listserv stopped them with the first error message about Mesage status being in the message body. -------------------------------------------------------------- found the mailserver name for the problem address... logged into their SMTP port and sent some test mail to both their postmaster and to the problem address, both went through fine, also got the list owner to contact the problem address with test mail and it was received and returned fine.... so as far as I can tell this may have been just a temporary hiccup at their end for this particular user.... also checked their MX records and there is a entry for the problem domain to route mail to there..... what I dont get is that it seems that the error status was attached to the reply to the original message in both cases....... and Listserv has not delivered either reply because of the error message status it attached to the replies.. is this usual practice?...... or am I missing something here?. and why would it stop subscribers unrelated in any way to the problem address from being able to post their replies to the original message to the list... Any ideas....... anyone........ ? Debra