From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 1 09:08:08 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id IAA15943 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 08:53:20 -0700 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id IAA15936 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 08:53:17 -0700 From: PMDAtropos@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA268861943; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 11:52:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 11:52:23 -0400 Message-Id: <950601115221_19082877@aol.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com, lstsrv-l@searn.sunet.se Subject: AOL Mailing List Database now available via FTP Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm pleased to announce that, at long last, America Online's "Mailing List Database" is now available via ftp: ftp://ftp.aol.com/pub/mailing-lists/ The current version, vol1no1.txt, is 1.78M in size and includes 1,307 mailing lists. We are still working on the format of the document, so some rough edges should be expected. An index, enumerating all of the lists in the file, should be included in the next version or in an addendum for this version. Constructive criticism is solicited and appreciated! If you have any questions, comments or concerns please feel free to contact me directly. -- __ David B. O'Donnell (atropos@aol.net, PMDAtropos@aol.com) \/ AOL Internet Feedback/Response/Information Team Manager Tel. +1 703/556-3725 - FAX +1 703/883-1514 - "The spam stops here." Belief-L, GLB-News, SoftRevu List Owner/Editor From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 2 18:04:29 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id RAA03499 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 17:56:45 -0700 Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id RAA03494 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 17:56:42 -0700 Received: by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id RAA07901; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 17:37:44 -0700 From: dkanagy@netcom.com (Dan Kanagy) Newsgroups: list.list-managers To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Mailing list throughput Date: Sat, 03 Jun 1995 08:27:28 +0900 Organization: WordWise Inc., Tokyo, Japan Message-ID: Lines: 24 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I run a relatively high volume list, although compared to others it must still be tiny. In any case, the list has about 260 subscribers and average daily traffic of 30 notes or more. Turnaround, however, is somewhat slow. It can take two to four hours (sometimes 10 or more hours) before postings appear in the list. The list is located at NETCOM and since NETCOM is a busy system I thought that this accounted for the generally slow turnaround. Recently, however, a subscriber to my list subscribed to another mailing list at NETCOM and found turnaround to be much faster for the new list (like 30 minutes or so). He and I are wondering what might be causing this difference. The new list only sees 5 or so notes per week. Is this difference in traffic volume what is accounting for the difference in turnaround time? For what it is worth, NETCOM uses majordomo as its list server. I'm unsure about the various parameters that affect list turnaround and hope to learn more. Thanks. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dan Kanagy Work: wordwise@netcom.com Play: dkanagy@twics.com Tokyo, Japan dkanagy@netcom.com From list-managers-owner Sat Jun 3 08:04:23 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id HAA13661 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 1995 07:44:17 -0700 Received: from library.UMMED.EDU (library.UMMED.EDU [146.189.64.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id HAA13656 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 1995 07:44:14 -0700 Received: (from naleks@localhost) by library.UMMED.EDU with id KAA04046; Sat, 3 Jun 1995 10:43:58 -0400 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 10:43:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Norm Aleks To: Dan Kanagy cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Mailing list throughput In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [Dan Kanagy] > the list has about 260 subscribers [...] It can take two to four hours > (sometimes 10 or more hours) before postings appear in the list. [...] > Recently, however, a subscriber to my list subscribed to another mailing > list at NETCOM and found turnaround to be much faster for the new list > (like 30 minutes or so). [...] For what it is worth, NETCOM uses > majordomo as its list server. Unless hacked, Majordomo sends mail out as a single Sendmail job with as many recipients as your list has subscribers. Sendmail delivers with a single process that tries addresses one by one (with some optimizations like sorting by MX). Therefore, on a long list, it can be a while before Sendmail makes it to the end. Your subscriber who got faster turnaround on the new list is probably closer to the beginning of Sendmail's delivery queue on that list -- fewer subscribers, perhaps? > I'm unsure about the various parameters that affect list turnaround and > hope to learn more. To speed things up, the MTA (Sendmail) could optimize better or parallelize delivery; or, the MLM (mailing list manager, Majordomo in your case) could split the list into pieces, forcing the MTA to parallelize; or, the destination machines could run faster or always be up, causing fewer delays by Sendmail. While it's not perfect, there is a discussion of delivery efficiency in the "Mailing List Management Software FAQ," available on comp.mail.list-admin.software or by request from various mail servers. Since you use Majordomo, try: send mail to Majordomo@GreatCircle.COM in the message body, write get list-managers software-faq The discussion in there pretty much assumes Sendmail is the MTA; I want to fix that and lots of other stuff about the FAQ (and hope to do so this summer). Please write to me privately with any suggestions. Norm -- "For Rent: 6-room hated apartment." From list-managers-owner Sat Jun 3 10:04:27 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id JAA14891 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 1995 09:52:14 -0700 Received: from tta.com (tta.com [198.65.128.193]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id JAA14886 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 1995 09:52:11 -0700 Received: (from stan@localhost) by tta.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id LAA23550; Sat, 3 Jun 1995 11:46:58 -0500 From: stan@tta.com (Stan Hanks) Message-Id: <199506031646.LAA23550@tta.com> Subject: Re: Mailing list throughput To: dkanagy@netcom.com Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 11:46:58 -0500 (CDT) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 898 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk My own observations are that at some point, core limitations of both majordomo and sendmail conspire to push your message turn-aroung time out to infinity. One of my lists (1600 subscribers, 100+ messages a day) long ago outstripped those capabilities and I wound up using custom built software to replace majordomo, and using a modified version of Keith Moore's "bulk_mailer" program for the back end. As soon as I installed bulk_mailer to pre-process the messages for final delivery, mean queue time for a message went down from about 5 hours to about 20 minutes. I was expecting some improvement, but WOW! That was two years ago, and I've had no trouble since. BTW, for what it's worth -- all this is happening on a 486/33 running BSDI. I have a theory that with infinite CPU resources you don't have to worry about the sendmail/majordomo limitations, but who has that luxury? Stan Hanks From list-managers-owner Sun Jun 4 01:34:26 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id BAA28901 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 1995 01:12:41 -0700 Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id BAA28896 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 1995 01:12:38 -0700 Received: by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id BAA18331; Sun, 4 Jun 1995 01:11:29 -0700 From: dkanagy@netcom.com (Dan Kanagy) Newsgroups: list.list-managers To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Mailing list throughput Date: Sun, 04 Jun 1995 15:45:59 +0900 Organization: WordWise Inc., Tokyo, Japan Message-ID: References: Lines: 10 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I appreciate the prompt replies I got to my question. The FAQ proved to be quite helpful. It appears that I need to find an alternative to majordomo if I want better throughput, although I've found majordomo quite convenient to use. I may be back with more questions after I've done further exploring. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dan Kanagy Work: wordwise@netcom.com Play: dkanagy@twics.com Tokyo, Japan dkanagy@netcom.com From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 5 14:07:06 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id NAA07823 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 13:39:31 -0700 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (searn.sunet.se [192.36.125.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id NAA07818 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 13:39:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199506052039.NAA07818@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3603; Mon, 05 Jun 95 22:35:08 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with RFC822 id 8941; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 22:35:08 +0200 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 22:32:09 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Mailing list throughput To: Stan Hanks cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: Message of Sat, 3 Jun 1995 11:46:58 -0500 (CDT) from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 3 Jun 1995 11:46:58 -0500 (CDT) Stan Hanks said: >That was two years ago, and I've had no trouble since. BTW, for what >it's worth -- all this is happening on a 486/33 running BSDI. I have a >theory that with infinite CPU resources you don't have to worry about >the sendmail/majordomo limitations, but who has that luxury? That's actually not true at all. Mail delivery is not very CPU intensive, and boosting the CPU doesn't provide much of an improvement. The delays you are observing are due to sendmail's non-scalable algorithms. The limiting factor is the speed at which answers can be received from SMTP servers all over the network, and not system resources. In fact by using the bulk mail program you have increased the load on your machine (more sendmail processes per delivery), in order to achieve faster delivery. Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 5 14:34:46 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id OAA09156 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:31:34 -0700 Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id OAA09151 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:31:29 -0700 Received: (pjg@localhost) by urth (8.6.10/8.6.4) with ESMTP id RAA16694; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 17:31:16 -0400 Message-Id: <199506052131.RAA16694@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: Eric Thomas cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Mailing list throughput In-reply-to: A message of "Mon, 05 Jun 1995 22:32:09 +0200." Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 17:31:16 -0400 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk it seems that you're agreeing with stan. in particular if you assume adequate i/o bandwidth as well as adequate cpu you can arrange parallel delivery to all recipients in real (or near real) time. doing this with sendmail can be resource intensive. -------- In reply to: On Sat, 3 Jun 1995 11:46:58 -0500 (CDT) Stan Hanks said: >I have a >theory that with infinite CPU resources you don't have to worry about >the sendmail/majordomo limitations, but who has that luxury? In fact by using the bulk mail program you have increased the load on your machine (more sendmail processes per delivery), in order to achieve faster delivery. Eric --------------------- -- paul pjg@acsu.Buffalo.EDU |public keys at: pjg@ubvm | http://urth.acsu.Buffalo.EDU/~pjg/key.html if the above contains opinions they are mine unless marked otherwise. From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 5 15:34:46 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id PAA10330 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 15:28:57 -0700 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (searn.sunet.se [192.36.125.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id PAA10312 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 15:28:51 -0700 Message-Id: <199506052228.PAA10312@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4004; Tue, 06 Jun 95 00:24:41 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with RFC822 id 1802; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 00:24:41 +0200 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 00:18:41 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Mailing list throughput To: Paul Graham cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 05 Jun 1995 17:31:16 -0400 from Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 05 Jun 1995 17:31:16 -0400 Paul Graham said: >it seems that you're agreeing with stan. in particular if you assume >adequate i/o bandwidth as well as adequate cpu you can arrange parallel >delivery to all recipients in real (or near real) time. doing this with >sendmail can be resource intensive. Stan said just CPU and referred to a 486/33, which is indeed considered a "slow" CPU nowadays. What you need (with sendmail) is CPU, memory and I/O, growing mostly in n2, and of course bandwidth, growing linearly. You can buy a machine 10 times faster than Stan's 486 and still not get all that much more work done. In fact on dedicated machines sendmail works better with *slower* CPUs. Upgrading from a 486/33 to a P90 would probably cause sendmail to swap the machine to death because it thinks it's underused, when in fact it is working at capacity as far as RAM and I/O are concerned (sendmail quirk #1829812). Eric From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 6 10:07:08 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id JAA06658 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:50:06 -0700 Received: from mimbres.cs.unm.edu (mimbres.cs.unm.edu [198.59.151.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id JAA06652 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:50:03 -0700 Received: from chaco.cs.unm.edu by mimbres.cs.unm.edu (5.65/033093) with SMTP id ; Tue, 6 Jun 95 10:49:58 -0600 Received: by chaco.cs.unm.edu (5.65/011293) id AA08947; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 10:49:56 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 10:49:56 -0600 Message-Id: <9506061649.AA08947@chaco.cs.unm.edu> From: To: Cc: Alan Lam Subject: resulting in error messages every half hour Reply-To: X-Reply-To: X-Phone: +1 (505) 831-3303 X-Office-Phone: +1 (505) 277-9155 X-Fax: +1 (505) 277-6927 X-Mailer: Emacs [v19.17.1] Rmail Organization: Netcom Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Folks, I'm experiencing a strange problem. When I send mail to (which I did because one of my subscribers left mdbe.com without first unsubscribing and the bounce message from didn't provide information from which I could determine who the party was) with a "Return-Receipt-To: " header, I get this error message sent to my mailbox every half an hour: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 08:04:28 -0700 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem Subject: Returned mail: Return receipt Message-Id: <9506061504.AB05387@sf_unix.mdbe.com> To: ----- Transcript of session follows ----- lmail: lock: cannot open root's mailbox:: Permission denied lmail: can't lock mail file for root: Permission denied lmail: unlock: fcntl failed... closing anyway: Bad file number ----- Message header follows ----- . . . The mdbe.com postmaster doesn't know how to effect a permanent solution to this. A temporary solution is to simply restart his mail daemon. I'm no sendmail(8) guru, and am hoping someone is enough of a guru to recognize the above errors so I can tell him what he needs to do to keep the problem from recurring. Thank you, Eric De Mund List Owner: Bay Area Bookstore Events http://www.culturewave.com/culturewave/ba-bookstore-events/ ftp://www.culturewave.com/pub/culturewave/ba-bookstore-events/ From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 14 11:58:41 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id KAA06952 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 10:50:24 -0700 Received: from campino.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (campino.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE [137.226.225.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id KAA06940 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 10:50:11 -0700 Received: from tabaqui (tabaqui.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE) by campino.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (4.1/campino-7) id AA22196; Wed, 14 Jun 95 19:37:03 +0200 Received: by tabaqui (4.1/POOLMH.3) id AA03104; Wed, 14 Jun 95 19:36:47 +0200 Message-Id: <9506141736.AA03104@tabaqui> From: berg@pool.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE (Stephen R. van den Berg) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 19:36:46 +0200 In-Reply-To: Alan Stebbens's message as of 1995 Jun 13 Tue 20:53. <199506140353.UAA13630@dokoka> To: "SmartList Users" , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: problem with unqualified hostnames on requests Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Alan Stebbens wrote: >Our mailer, on the assumption that "plain", unqualified names can only >be local, qualifies the names with our default domain. Thus, in the >request header below, we see "ats@hubert.ucsb.edu", when, in fact, the >original request had "ats@hubert", without any domain name. IMO, if someone's mail setup is this seriously broken, he should fix it at his end first. The *least* he must do is add a suitable Reply-To: field. -- Sincerely, berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless). A truly wise man never plays leapfrog with a unicorn. From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 14 14:35:38 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id OAA12280 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 14:23:52 -0700 Received: from hub.ucsb.edu (hub.ucsb.edu [128.111.24.40]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id UAA25620 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 20:47:53 -0700 Received: from dokoka (dokoka.ucsb.edu) by hub.ucsb.edu; id AA29844 sendmail 4.1/UCSB-2.1-sun Tue, 13 Jun 95 20:48:02 PDT for list-managers@greatcircle.com Received: from dokoka.ucsb.edu by dokoka via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI) id UAA13630; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 20:53:27 -0700 Message-Id: <199506140353.UAA13630@dokoka> To: "SmartList Users" , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: problem with unqualified hostnames on requests Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 20:53:20 -0700 From: Alan Stebbens Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm not sure how to deal with this problem: A request comes into a smartlist-managed request alias, where the "From:" headers are unqualified, but the address on the "subscribe ADDRESS" command *is* fully-qualified. Our mailer, on the assumption that "plain", unqualified names can only be local, qualifies the names with our default domain. Thus, in the request header below, we see "ats@hubert.ucsb.edu", when, in fact, the original request had "ats@hubert", without any domain name. Since our mailer is doing the qualifying, there is no way SmartList, or any other list managing software, can know that both the From: or From address is wrong, unless they compare them against the address in the Message-Id: (if there is one). Does anyone know of an automatic heuristic to deal with these kinds of problems, or should I just let 'em bounce? Alan >From ats@hubert.ucsb.edu Tue Jun 13 19:58:02 1995 >Received: from hubert.wustl.edu (eliot42.wustl.edu) by hub.ucsb.edu; id AA29354 > sendmail 4.1/UCSB-2.1-sun > Tue, 13 Jun 95 19:58:02 PDT for flist hyperbole-request >Received: from localhost (ats@localhost) by hubert.wustl.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA13670 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 21:57:18 -0500 >Message-Id: <199506140257.VAA13670@hubert.wustl.edu> >X-Authentication-Warning: hubert.wustl.edu: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol >To: hyperbole-request@hub.ucsb.edu >Subject: Subscribe (Alan Shutko >Comments: Hyperbole mail buttons accepted, v03.18.13. >Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 21:57:12 -0500 >From: Alan Shutko > > > hyperbole-announce - Hyperbole announcements only > From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 14 16:35:02 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id QAA15973 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 16:27:21 -0700 Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id QAA15968 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 16:27:18 -0700 Received: by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id QAA18126; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 16:14:45 -0700 From: dkanagy@netcom.com (Dan Kanagy) Newsgroups: list.list-managers To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Looking for an ISP with a listserver other than majordomo Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 07:52:34 +0900 Organization: WordWise Inc., Tokyo, Japan Message-ID: Lines: 29 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Actually, I quite like majordomo and would be happy to continue using it if it were more efficient in handling relatively large and busy lists. In the case of the list I run, however, timely answers are of an extra value to subscribers, which means I need to find an alternative to majordomo. Based on the advice given here, I looked into running either procmail/SmartList or MReply under my shell account at NETCOM as an alternative. This would have likely worked. However, I also learned that NETCOM runs an automated detached-process killer that will occasionally kill mailing list messages being processed in the case of MReply. One MReply user complains that this happens to him several times a month. This won't do. So I am wondering if you can recommend to me a U.S.-based ISP (the largest number of my subscribers live in the U.S.) that offers a shell account and will let me use procmail/SmartList or MReply to run a mailing list there. Actually, an ISP that offers listproc or some other listserver that is more efficient than majordomo would also do. I would also want an ISP that lets me create an anonymous ftp directory to make list archives available. The list I am considering relocating concerns Japanese/English translation, has about 250 subscribers, and generates about 30 notes a day. Thanks. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dan Kanagy Work: wordwise@netcom.com Play: dkanagy@twics.com Tokyo, Japan dkanagy@netcom.com From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 15 00:34:59 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id AAA23988 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 00:25:32 -0700 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (searn.sunet.se [192.36.125.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id AAA23983 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 00:25:28 -0700 Message-Id: <199506150725.AAA23983@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6218; Thu, 15 Jun 95 09:21:27 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with RFC822 id 1033; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 09:21:26 +0200 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 08:45:30 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Looking for an ISP with a listserver other than majordomo To: list-managers@greatcircle.com, Dan Kanagy In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 15 Jun 1995 07:52:34 +0900 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 15 Jun 1995 07:52:34 +0900 Dan Kanagy said: >Based on the advice given here, I looked into running either >procmail/SmartList or MReply under my shell account at NETCOM as an >alternative. This would have likely worked. However, I also learned that >NETCOM runs an automated detached-process killer that will occasionally >kill mailing list messages being processed in the case of MReply. I find this discussion a bit surprising. You're trying to run a large, busy list for free on a shell account, and seem surprised that the ISP is taking steps to prevent this. I don't know what the contract says of course, but looking at the business situation, the fees you're paying the ISP are for a normal, single-person level of usage of the shell account. That means, I don't know, a couple dozen messages a day, maybe a hundred, certainly not tens of thousands. Running large, busy lists costs real money, so it's no wonder that Netcom wants to recover its costs and prevent abuse. Another issue is that your shell account would be on a system that is primarily used by people with shell accounts who expect quick delivery of private mail. If say a couple dozen users were to inject 10k deliveries into the system each, delivery times for personal mail could be dramatically impacted and everyone would suffer. If I were an ISP I wouldn't want to mix mailing list traffic with personal traffic. Even if I offered lists for free, I would demand that it be done on a separate machine. >The list I am considering relocating concerns Japanese/English >translation, has about 250 subscribers, and generates about 30 notes a >day. To give you an example, for 250 subscribers we would charge $460 a year. That's with LISTSERV and (very soon - just got the box today) LSMTP, ie your users would get the messages in under 2 minutes. 250 is not what I would call a large list, but it's still enough traffic that there is a three-figure cost to the provider. You can't really expect to get this for free, or at least not with a good level of service. I mean, one could throw together a PC with a free list manager, make sure it's up before going home for the day and otherwise not pay any attention to it, and sell 'as is' lists for $5 a month, or maybe even free with your subscription, but people are on their own and if it's slow, well, tough. That's one thing. But good service costs real money. You need fast machines with lots of memory so they don't swap themselves to death even during peak hours, people to monitor them regularly and answer questions, software that scales up to large workloads so you don't have to explain to customers why the cost per delivery *increases* with volume, etc. Eric From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 15 10:06:07 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id JAA01713 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 09:58:04 -0700 Received: from bronze.interlog.com (bronze.interlog.com [198.53.145.11]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id JAA01708 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 09:57:55 -0700 Received: (from silliker@localhost) by bronze.interlog.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08506 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:13:54 -0400 From: Andrew Silliker Message-Id: <199506151713.NAA08506@bronze.interlog.com> Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 139 (fwd) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:13:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2201 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi folks. I recently upgraded to Majordomo 1.93, and am now experiencing memory faults. I run BSDi 2.0 on an i486dx33 w/ 16MB of memory. Has anyone experienced this phenomenon, and is there a solution? The list commands that are sent to majordomo *are* processed, but messages such as the following get passed on to majordomo-owner. Ideas are appreciated. Andy. Forwarded message: > From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Jun 15 13:01:30 1995 > Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:01:29 -0400 > From: Mail Delivery Subsystem > Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 139 > Message-Id: <199506151701.NAA08399@bronze.interlog.com> > To: silliker > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="NAA08399.803235689/bronze.interlog.com" > > This is a MIME-encapsulated message > > --NAA08399.803235689/bronze.interlog.com > > The original message was received at Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:00:48 -0400 > from 40295@icarus.lis.pitt.edu [136.142.116.2] > > ----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- > "|/usr/contrib/majordomo/wrapper majordomo" (unrecoverable error) > (expanded from: ) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > Message delivered to mailing list > Memory fault > 554 "|/usr/contrib/majordomo/wrapper majordomo"... unknown mailer error 139 > > ----- Original message follows ----- > > --NAA08399.803235689/bronze.interlog.com > Content-Type: message/rfc822 > > Return-Path: carr@icarus.lis.pitt.edu > Received: from icarus.lis.pitt.edu (40295@icarus.lis.pitt.edu [136.142.116.2]) by bronze.interlog.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA08397 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:00:48 -0400 > Received: by icarus.lis.pitt.edu (4.1/1.34) > id AA15014; Thu, 15 Jun 95 12:45:18 EDT > Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 12:45:17 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Cathy (Cate) Carr" > Subject: subscribe > To: majordomo@bronze.interlog.com > Message-Id: > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > subscribe eye-music > > > --NAA08399.803235689/bronze.interlog.com-- > > From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 15 13:35:55 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id NAA06805 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:08:46 -0700 Received: from solar.rtd.utk.edu (SOLAR.RTD.UTK.EDU [128.169.112.24]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id NAA06794 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:08:41 -0700 Received: by solar.rtd.utk.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 95 16:07:53 EDT Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 16:07:52 -0400 (EDT) From: David Zlotchenko To: List-Managers@miles.greatcircle.com Subject: setting features of a digest Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dear friends, Sorry if my question is not general enough, and more technical. I'm trying to set up features for digesting of my list: length in lines and/or days to cover. Currently I have in the server config file the following line: digest vecua42 100000 30 If I understand correctly, 100000 is max number of lines in a digest and 30 is max number of days between digest. But I'm getting digest sent with one or two short postings (~20 lines plus 8-10 of headers). The digest delay only couple hours consolidating postings (that is how I got 2 mails in a digest). All postings have to be approved. Could someone advise me what is incorrect in my configuration and/or where I can read detail protocol of the server config file. We are running Listserv 6.0 on Sun OS 4.0.1. Thank you very much. -- David Zlotchenko Research Services Phone: (01) (615) 974-2909 The University of Tennessee Email: zlotchen@solar.rtd.utk.edu From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 15 18:39:05 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id SAA12108 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 18:26:42 -0700 Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id SAA12103 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 18:26:39 -0700 Received: by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id RAA10021; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 17:55:07 -0700 From: dkanagy@netcom.com (Dan Kanagy) Newsgroups: list.list-managers To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Looking for an ISP with a listserver other than majordomo Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 08:50:46 +0900 Organization: WordWise Inc., Tokyo, Japan Message-ID: References: <199506150725.AAA10589@mail.netcom.com> Lines: 54 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In article <199506150725.AAA10589@mail.netcom.com>, Eric Thomas wrote: | On Thu, 15 Jun 1995 07:52:34 +0900 Dan Kanagy said: | I find this discussion a bit surprising. Ooops, is my naivete showing? | To give you an example, for 250 subscribers we would charge $460 a year. | That's with LISTSERV and (very soon - just got the box today) LSMTP, ie | your users would get the messages in under 2 minutes. 250 is not what I | would call a large list, but it's still enough traffic that there is a | three-figure cost to the provider. You can't really expect to get this | for free, or at least not with a good level of service. Actually, if the level of service I'm looking for means paying for it, I wouldn't be adverse to doing so. Let me explain my situation a bit more. The HONYAKU list I administer is sponsored by the Japan Association of Translators. The organization is nonprofit--the officers of the organization volunteer their time and are not paid for it. We're not a large organization, with 150 or so members. There aren't that many Japanese/English translators in the world. :-) Which is one reason why it makes so much sense to have a mailing list so that professional colleagues who are separated geographically can share information with each other. I fell into administrating the list, as it were, without knowing very much about mailing lists. And I can't say I know that much more about them now. However, as the list grew in size, throughput has deteriorated, and, given the nature of the list, this has become a matter of concern. That is to say, many questions posted to the list concern terminology and are asked in the context of real work and tight deadlines. Throughput of 10 minutes would be better than throughput of 1 hour, which would be better than throughput of 2 hours, and so forth. Now throughput is somewhere between 4 and 8 hours, sometimes longer quite a bit longer. If paying $460 or so a year would gain us a listserver with significantly improved throughput, it's conceivable to me that the organization's directors would approve of such an outlay. FWIW, only 20 to 30 subscribers to the list are actually members of the Japan Association of Translators. But JAT members gain a lot from the discussion in the list so we maintain the list as a service to the translator community at large. It's a public list open to anyone interested in Japanese/English translation. So, based on the above, would you have mailing list providers to recommend or suggestions of where to look for one? ____________________________________________________________________________ Dan Kanagy Work: wordwise@netcom.com Play: dkanagy@twics.com Tokyo, Japan dkanagy@netcom.com From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 15 20:05:07 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id UAA14464 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 20:03:04 -0700 Received: from usis.com (usis.com [199.171.178.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id UAA14459 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 20:03:01 -0700 Received: from siberia.usis.com (siberia.usis.com [199.171.178.71]) by usis.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA13805 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:52:53 -0500 Message-Id: <199506160252.VAA13805@usis.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Kimberly Long" Organization: usis To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:56:08 +0000 Subject: Re: Looking for an ISP with a listserver other than majordo Reply-to: siberia@usis.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 16 Jun 95 at 8:50, Dan Kanagy wrote: > [...] > So, based on the above, would you have mailing list providers to > recommend or suggestions of where to look for one? Give this a whirl: send email to majordomo@edmonds.home.cs.ubc.ca with the single line "get faq ml-providers.txt" in the body of the message Namaste' Kimberly Long siberia@usis.com Ted "Bull" Howard races his jeep up and down his ranch trying to convince himself that he owns it. Maybe some day he will notice those billion-year mountains laughing at him. )O( ~Hugh Prather From list-managers-owner Sat Jun 17 15:36:31 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id PAA29914 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 1995 15:26:36 -0700 Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu (WILMA.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.141]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id UAA21856 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 20:42:13 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK) id XAA22259; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 23:42:15 -0400 Message-Id: <199506150342.XAA22259@wilma.cs.utk.edu> X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/ From: Keith Moore To: Alan Stebbens cc: "SmartList Users" , list-managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: problem with unqualified hostnames on requests In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Jun 1995 20:53:20 PDT." <199506140353.UAA13630@dokoka> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 23:42:08 -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > A request comes into a smartlist-managed request alias, where the > "From:" headers are unqualified, but the address on the "subscribe > ADDRESS" command *is* fully-qualified. A reasonable list manager should be able to handle it. You add the fully-qualified address in the subscribe command, and send a reply to both the requester (from the envelope return address) and the person being subscribed. The reply to the requester might bounce, but the person will still get the acknowledgement. Of course, this won't work if you insist that people only subscribe by sending mail from the address that they're subscribing to. > Our mailer, on the assumption that "plain", unqualified names can only > be local, qualifies the names with our default domain. Thus, in the > request header below, we see "ats@hubert.ucsb.edu", when, in fact, the > original request had "ats@hubert", without any domain name. Obviously your mailer isn't making a reasonable assumption. My experience is that this kind of hack just makes it harder to track down problems. It's much easier to just have all of your local hosts that speak SMTP spit out fully-qualified domain addresses and have your mailer leave all addresses alone. That way, when you see an address of the form user@somehost.ucsb.edu, you *know* that "somehost" is one of yours and not someone else's. > Since our mailer is doing the qualifying, there is no way SmartList, or > any other list managing software, can know that both the From: or From > address is wrong, unless they compare them against the address in the > Message-Id: (if there is one). Not even then. There's no requirement that the domain in the message-id be the same as the one in the From field. The problem isn't in smartlist, it's in your mailer. You should direct your attention there rather than trying to fix smartlist. You may think it's reasonable to have your local mailers emit unqualified addresses. But the protocols weren't written to accomodate this behavior, so it's no surprise that it doesn't work well. Keith Moore From list-managers-owner Sat Jun 17 15:38:48 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id PAA29940 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 1995 15:26:48 -0700 Received: from hub.ucsb.edu (hub.ucsb.edu [128.111.24.40]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id WAA23380 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 22:55:14 -0700 Received: from dokoka (dokoka.ucsb.edu) by hub.ucsb.edu; id AA22293 sendmail 4.1/UCSB-2.1-sun Wed, 14 Jun 95 22:55:07 PDT for list-managers@greatcircle.com Received: from dokoka.ucsb.edu by dokoka via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI) id XAA18219; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 23:00:31 -0700 Message-Id: <199506150600.XAA18219@dokoka> To: Keith Moore Cc: Alan Stebbens , "SmartList Users" , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: problem with unqualified hostnames on requests Reply-To: "Alan K. Stebbens" In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 14 Jun 1995 23:42:08 PDT. <199506150342.XAA22259@wilma.cs.utk.edu> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 23:00:25 -0700 From: Alan Stebbens Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > A request comes into a smartlist-managed request alias, where the > > "From:" headers are unqualified, but the address on the "subscribe > > ADDRESS" command *is* fully-qualified. > > A reasonable list manager should be able to handle it. The point of using list mgr software is so that I, the human, am not involved unless absolutely necessary. Of course, I can handle it; you're missing the point. > Of course, this won't work if you insist that people only subscribe by > sending mail from the address that they're subscribing to. The subscription succeeded, actually, because the given address on the command was correct, despite the fact that originating mail had unqualified hostnames. Where do you infer that I am insisting that people only subscribe with their originating address? I am using SmartList; it can accept subscriptions either way: from a header, or from a command line. However, it is customary for most mailers to form a return address from one of the originating headers, and SmartList is no different -- it accepted the correct address from the command line, but it responded to (or tried to) a return address formed from the "Reply-to" or "From" headers. > > Our mailer, on the assumption that "plain", unqualified names can only > > be local, qualifies the names with our default domain. Thus, in the > > request header below, we see "ats@hubert.ucsb.edu", when, in fact, the > > original request had "ats@hubert", without any domain name. > > Obviously your mailer isn't making a reasonable assumption. This is neither obvious nor unreasonable. In an arbitrary context, a central mailer, when given a plain name, has no other choice except to assume that it is qualified in the local domain. With unqualified originating addresses, it may not be necessary to qualify them, but neither will they be of any use for future replies. With unqualified destination addresses, the mailer has no choice except to assume the local domain. > My experience is that this kind of hack just makes it harder to track > down problems. It's much easier to just have all of your local hosts > that speak SMTP spit out fully-qualified domain addresses and have > your mailer leave all addresses alone. That way, when you see an > address of the form user@somehost.ucsb.edu, you *know* that "somehost" > is one of yours and not someone else's. All of our local hosts are configured to fully qualify the hostname. Why, then, one might ask, does your mailer fully qualify unqualified hostnames? The answer is because our mailer serves as a campus mail-hub, guaranteed to emit properly formatted mail. Many departments, especially those without technical support, rely on this hub mailer to take their POP-based mail (from their Macs or PCs), and "clean it up" before sending it onward. > > Since our mailer is doing the qualifying, there is no way SmartList, or > > any other list managing software, can know that both the From: or From > > address is wrong, unless they compare them against the address in the > > Message-Id: (if there is one). > > Not even then. There's no requirement that the domain in the > message-id be the same as the one in the From field. This is true. I was hoping but not expecting. > The problem isn't in smartlist, it's in your mailer. You should > direct your attention there rather than trying to fix smartlist. I disagree. The real problem is the particular originating host which is issuing plain addresses. The solution is to remove the offending address from the list, until mail from it uses properly qualified names. > You may think it's reasonable to have your local mailers emit > unqualified addresses. But the protocols weren't written to > accomodate this behavior, so it's no surprise that it doesn't work > well. You've made an unfounded assumption; nowhere did I state or imply that we configure our local mailers to emit unqualified addresses. Alan From list-managers-owner Sat Jun 17 17:06:37 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id QAA02134 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 1995 16:50:18 -0700 Received: from thud.cs.utk.edu (THUD.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.228]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id XAA23612 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 23:36:05 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST.cs.utk.edu by thud.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK) id CAA11783; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 02:35:47 -0400 Message-Id: <199506150635.CAA11783@thud.cs.utk.edu> X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/ From: Keith Moore To: "Alan K. Stebbens" cc: Keith Moore , Alan Stebbens , "SmartList Users" , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: problem with unqualified hostnames on requests In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 14 Jun 1995 23:00:25 PDT." <199506150600.XAA18219@dokoka> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 02:35:45 -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: Alan Stebbens > > > > A request comes into a smartlist-managed request alias, where the > > > "From:" headers are unqualified, but the address on the "subscribe > > > ADDRESS" command *is* fully-qualified. > > > > A reasonable list manager should be able to handle it. > > The point of using list mgr software is so that I, the human, am not > involved unless absolutely necessary. Of course, I can handle it; > you're missing the point. No, by "reasonable list manager" I was referring to software. > > Of course, this won't work if you insist that people only subscribe by > > sending mail from the address that they're subscribing to. > > The subscription succeeded, actually, because the given address on the > command was correct, despite the fact that originating mail had > unqualified hostnames. good. (did smartlist send a copy of the acknowledgement to the address that was subscribed? if so, what's the problem?) > Where do you infer that I am insisting that people only subscribe with > their originating address? I didn't infer this. The "this won't work..." was a just-in-case. It's hard to guess what kind of policies people might have in place. > However, it is customary for most mailers to form a return address from > one of the originating headers, and SmartList is no different -- it > accepted the correct address from the command line, but it responded to > (or tried to) a return address formed from the "Reply-to" or "From" > headers. (aside: It turns out that you really want this to go to the envelope return address. I wrote na-net to send acks to the header reply address, and it turned out to be a losing approach.) again, it's a good idea for a list manager program to send a copy of the ack to the person who's subscribed. That way if person A subscribes person B, person B finds out *why* he's getting all of this mail he didn't ask for... > > > Our mailer, on the assumption that "plain", unqualified names can only > > > be local, qualifies the names with our default domain. Thus, in the > > > request header below, we see "ats@hubert.ucsb.edu", when, in fact, the > > > original request had "ats@hubert", without any domain name. > > > > Obviously your mailer isn't making a reasonable assumption. The assumption isn't reasonable because it's not true. > This is neither obvious nor unreasonable. In an arbitrary context, a > central mailer, when given a plain name, has no other choice except to > assume that it is qualified in the local domain. False. It can certainly leave the headers alone. And if the sender's mailer doesn't know its own domain for the HELO or MAIL FROM command, it's perfectly reasonable for the SMTP server to bounce it. This way the problem gets detected (and fixed) immediately, and you don't get the wierd failures that happen when mailers rewrite header addresses. > With unqualified > originating addresses, it may not be necessary to qualify them, but > neither will they be of any use for future replies. True. But since replies don't work at all, you'll find the problem fairly quickly. If you try to patch things up at the central mail server, it works most of the time, but when it fails, the failure is detected at the recipient site (like the failure you detected) and the person who detected the failure can't do much about it. (e.g. you can't do much to fix ats@hubert's mailer...) The problem is that not all of the traffic that goes through your MTA is locally-originated. If someone sends mail to an address at your machine, and the mail gets forwarded to another domain, the sender's address will get rewritten by your machine. > All of our local hosts are configured to fully qualify the hostname. I guess it depends on what you mean by "local hosts". > Why, then, one might ask, does your mailer fully qualify unqualified > hostnames? The answer is because our mailer serves as a campus > mail-hub, guaranteed to emit properly formatted mail. Many > departments, especially those without technical support, rely on this > hub mailer to take their POP-based mail (from their Macs or PCs), and > "clean it up" before sending it onward. Yes, but you cannot reliably "emit properly formatted mail" that wasn't formatted correctly in the first place, because you cannot tell mail that is broken because it came from one of your campus (see, I didn't say "local") brain-dead POP clients, from mail that is broken because it came from somebody else's broken mailer. It might seem like your approach wins because, after all, most of the mail you rewrite is locally originated. But if you look instead at the number of mailer errors you track down (and how much time you spend doing so), my guess is that you spend more time tracking down remote errors. So you want to minimize the number of errors you cause for others...which implies that you want to detect your local errors as soon as possible. > > The problem isn't in smartlist, it's in your mailer. You should > > direct your attention there rather than trying to fix smartlist. > > I disagree. The real problem is the particular originating host which is > issuing plain addresses. The solution is to remove the offending address > from the list, until mail from it uses properly qualified names. I think there are three problems: 1) your list subscriber's mailer which is spitting out bad from addresses. 2) the "Macs and PCs" on your campus that emit bad from addresses. 3) your mailer, that tries to fix (2) and ends up fixing some problems and making others worse. If I were in the position of trying to make this work, I'd probably hack sendmail to append default domains to header addresses *only* for SMTP traffic from the local subnets that are used by PCs and Macs. This would work fine in practice as long as none of the hosts for which you do the rewriting ever accept incoming mail and forward it elsewhere (which would be true for POP hosts that don't run an SMTP server). It may seem like I'm carping, but I've spent a lot of time looking at this problem, and I've concluded that all of this "fixing up" just ends up making the whole mail system less reliable. Of course you're going to do what you have to to keep the mail running, but it's worth the effort to make sure that what you're doing doesn't botch 3rd party mail. Regards, Keith From list-managers-owner Sun Jun 18 01:35:34 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id BAA08128 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 01:06:17 -0700 Received: from bctf.bc.ca (sun.bctf.bc.ca [134.87.127.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id BAA08123 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 01:06:12 -0700 Received: from qm.bctf.bc.ca by bctf.bc.ca (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20237; Sun, 18 Jun 95 01:11:48 PDT Message-Id: <9506180811.AA20237@bctf.bc.ca> Date: 18 Jun 1995 01:07:58 -0800 From: "Marie Franco" Subject: [1]List-Managers-Digest V4 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [1]List-Managers-Digest V4 #119 6/18/95 This is a response from my "Mail Manager." It responds to any messages while I'm out of the office. I'm on a course June 19, 20, and 21. I'll be in on Thursday, June 22, and then away on holidays until the 18th of July. If you want to contact me, send a message to my internet address -- mfranco@bctf.bc.ca--I'll be checking my mail. Thanks. Marie From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 19 01:35:44 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id BAA23525 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 01:08:37 -0700 Received: from bctf.bc.ca (sun.bctf.bc.ca [134.87.127.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id BAA23520 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 01:08:33 -0700 Received: from qm.bctf.bc.ca by bctf.bc.ca (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21968; Mon, 19 Jun 95 01:14:11 PDT Message-Id: <9506190814.AA21968@bctf.bc.ca> Date: 19 Jun 1995 01:10:06 -0800 From: "Marie Franco" Subject: [1]List-Managers-Digest V4 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [1]List-Managers-Digest V4 #120 6/19/95 This is a response from my "Mail Manager." It responds to any messages while I'm out of the office. I'm on a course June 19, 20, and 21. I'll be in on Thursday, June 22, and then away on holidays until the 18th of July. If you want to contact me, send a message to my internet address -- mfranco@bctf.bc.ca--I'll be checking my mail. Thanks. Marie From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 20 01:35:40 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id BAA01844 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 01:11:33 -0700 Received: from bctf.bc.ca (sun.bctf.bc.ca [134.87.127.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id BAA01832 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 01:11:27 -0700 Received: from qm.bctf.bc.ca by bctf.bc.ca (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA24554; Tue, 20 Jun 95 01:17:07 PDT Message-Id: <9506200817.AA24554@bctf.bc.ca> Date: 20 Jun 1995 01:10:42 -0800 From: "Marie Franco" Subject: [1]List-Managers-Digest V4 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [1]List-Managers-Digest V4 #121 6/20/95 This is a response from my "Mail Manager." It responds to any messages while I'm out of the office. I'm on a course June 19, 20, and 21. I'll be in on Thursday, June 22, and then away on holidays until the 18th of July. If you want to contact me, send a message to my internet address -- mfranco@bctf.bc.ca--I'll be checking my mail. Thanks. Marie From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 20 13:07:47 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id NAA26666 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 13:02:31 -0700 Received: from utopia.pinsight.com (utopia.pinsight.com [204.119.192.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id NAA26661; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 13:02:27 -0700 Received: from ppp-s22.pinsight.com (ppp-s22.pinsight.com [204.119.192.122]) by utopia.pinsight.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA15255; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 13:02:44 -0700 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 13:02:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199506202002.NAA15255@utopia.pinsight.com> From: Bob Fleming To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V4 #121 Cc: mfranco@bctf.bc.ca X-Mailer: ProntoIP [version 1.03] Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Thanks for keeping us all posted. Will we be getting this message each day until July 18th ... ;-) > >List-Managers-Digest Tuesday, 20 June 1995 Volume 04 : Number > 121 > >In this issue: > > [1]List-Managers-Digest V4 > >See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the >List-Managers or List-Managers-Digest mailing lists and on how >to retrieve back issues. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >From: "Marie Franco" >Date: 19 Jun 1995 01:10:06 -0800 >Subject: [1]List-Managers-Digest V4 > > [1]List-Managers-Digest V4 #120 6/19/95 >This is a response from my "Mail Manager." It responds to any messages while >I'm out of the office. I'm on a course June 19, 20, and 21. I'll be in on >Thursday, June 22, and then away on holidays until the 18th of July. > >If you want to contact me, send a message to my internet address -- >mfranco@bctf.bc.ca--I'll be checking my mail. > >Thanks. > >Marie > > > >------------------------------ > >End of List-Managers-Digest V4 #121 >*********************************** > >To unsubscribe from List-Managers-Digest, send the following command >in the body of a message to "Majordomo@GreatCircle.COM": > >unsubscribe list-managers-digest > >If you want to subscribe or unsubscribe an address other than the >account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, >then append that address to the command; for example, to subscribe >"local-list-managers": > >subscribe list-managers-digest local-list-managers@your.domain.net > >A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to >subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "list-managers-digest" >in the commands above with "list-managers". > >Compressed back issues are available for anonymous FTP from >FTP.GreatCircle.COM, in pub/list-managers/digest/vNN.nMMM.Z (where "NN" >is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number). > > From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 20 14:06:51 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id NAA29500 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 13:52:19 -0700 Received: from relay4.UU.NET (relay4.UU.NET [192.48.96.14]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id NAA29494 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 13:52:15 -0700 Received: from postmodern.com by relay4.UU.NET with SMTP id QQyuzj29339; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 16:52:44 -0400 Received: by postmodern.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4/950522-mcb1) id AA05182; Tue, 20 Jun 95 13:44:41 PDT Message-Id: <9506202044.AA05182@postmodern.com> From: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 13:44:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: <199506202002.NAA15255@utopia.pinsight.com> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: vacation message content-length: 312 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Thanks for keeping us all posted. Will we be getting this message each day > until July 18th ... ;-) I've bounced her from the list. Sorry for not catching it the first time. (At least there was only one per day.) -- Michael C. Berch list-managers list manager mcb@greatcircle.com / mcb@postmodern.com From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 20 18:05:45 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id RAA07314 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:52:21 -0700 Received: from gagme.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id RAA07309 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:52:18 -0700 Received: by gagme.wwa.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #8) id m0sOE4J-000FIZC; Tue, 20 Jun 95 19:54 CDT Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: Re: Marie Franco's diligence To: bfleming@pinsight.com (Bob Fleming) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:54:58 -0500 (CDT) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199506202002.NAA15255@utopia.pinsight.com> from "Bob Fleming" at Jun 20, 95 01:02:44 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1522 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Every day when Marie Franco receives the digest her autoresponse sends this to the list, which in turn distributes it to everybody: | >This is a response from my "Mail Manager." It responds to any messages while | >I'm out of the office. I'm on a course June 19, 20, and 21. I'll be in on | >Thursday, June 22, and then away on holidays until the 18th of July. Bob Fleming commented: | Thanks for keeping us all posted. Will we be getting this message each day | until July 18th ... ;-) Apparently we will, Bob, except for June 22. No wonder she refers to her mail manager in quotes; it isn't the real thing. I wonder how many days the digest has consisted only of Marie's autoresponse to the previous day's digest (which in turn may have comprised nothing but her autoresponse the the one before). But darn it, that's an article for the list, so the next day there's another digest issue, and her acknowledgment comes in again to trigger another the day after, even though no one else has been submitting. If her autoreplier were configured right, there would be no mail for it to react to. The way this feeds on itself is truly funny. When digest subscribers to my lists misconfigure their autorepliers I tweak the list routines to prevent their blurbs from going out. If they're on the reflector distribution and sending their autoresponses to the authors, I switch them to digest so that they will stop annoying the other members and make note that they are not allowed EVER to return to the reflector. From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 20 19:35:42 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id TAA09852 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:24:06 -0700 Received: from utopia.pinsight.com (utopia.pinsight.com [204.119.192.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id TAA09845 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:24:02 -0700 Received: from ppp-s16.pinsight.com (ppp-s16.pinsight.com [204.119.192.116]) by utopia.pinsight.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA19822; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:24:19 -0700 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:24:19 -0700 Message-Id: <199506210224.TAA19822@utopia.pinsight.com> From: Bob Fleming To: dattier@wwa.com, bfleming@pinsight.com Subject: Re: Marie Franco's diligence Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com X-Mailer: ProntoIP [version 1.03] Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Every day when Marie Franco receives the digest her autoresponse sends this >to the list, which in turn distributes it to everybody: > >| >This is a response from my "Mail Manager." It responds to any messages > while >| >I'm out of the office. I'm on a course June 19, 20, and 21. I'll be in > on >| >Thursday, June 22, and then away on holidays until the 18th of July. > >Bob Fleming commented: > >| Thanks for keeping us all posted. Will we be getting this message each > day >| until July 18th ... ;-) > >Apparently we will, Bob, except for June 22. No wonder she refers to her >mail manager in quotes; it isn't the real thing. > >I wonder how many days the digest has consisted only of Marie's autoresponse >to the previous day's digest (which in turn may have comprised nothing but >her autoresponse the the one before). But darn it, that's an article for > the >list, so the next day there's another digest issue, and her acknowledgment >comes in again to trigger another the day after, even though no one else has >been submitting. If her autoreplier were configured right, there would be > no >mail for it to react to. The way this feeds on itself is truly funny. > >When digest subscribers to my lists misconfigure their autorepliers I tweak >the list routines to prevent their blurbs from going out. If they're on the >reflector distribution and sending their autoresponses to the authors, I >switch them to digest so that they will stop annoying the other members and >make note that they are not allowed EVER to return to the reflector. > > Yea! NEVER! Bannishment! I like it! Maybe we should talk behind her back while she's away... spread rumors about her... Nah... better not: I hear she's related to that Franco guy who ran Spain for a while. Heck, we could all be shot at dawn. Maybe auto responders are not that bad. In fact, I like them... yes, I really do... honest, General. -Roberto From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 20 20:09:34 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id TAA10296 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:48:02 -0700 Received: from gagme.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id TAA10291 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:47:58 -0700 Received: by gagme.wwa.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #8) id m0sOFsG-000FIBC; Tue, 20 Jun 95 21:50 CDT Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: clarification To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 21:50:39 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 862 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I said this: | When digest subscribers to my lists misconfigure their autorepliers I tweak | the list routines to prevent their blurbs from going out. If they're on | the reflector distribution and sending their autoresponses to the authors, | I switch them to digest so that they will stop annoying the other members | and make note that they are not allowed EVER to return to the reflector. Someone has ridiculed me in private email for "banishing" (as he put it) people from a list for misconfiguring and autoreplier. I do *not* kick them off. I move them to the digest distribution so that I'm the only person who receives their autoresponses. Their subscriptions have to stay in digest mode as long as they're on the list. If they were on the digest distribution already, I just make sure that their autoresponses don't go out to the other members. From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 20 23:36:20 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id XAA14444 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 23:08:16 -0700 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id XAA14438 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 23:08:13 -0700 From: BBsREVENGE@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA135004733; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 02:05:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 02:05:33 -0400 Message-Id: <950621020532_99152273@aol.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Beginning Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I would like to start a list at my Law school and I need some direction about where to start. From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 21 03:35:50 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id DAA21882 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:08:40 -0700 Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id DAA21877; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:08:36 -0700 Received: (from fuzzy@localhost) by panix.com (8.6.12/8.6.12+PanixU1.1) id GAA16072; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 06:08:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 06:08:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Fuzzy To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM cc: list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V4 #122 In-Reply-To: <199506210800.BAA17383@miles.greatcircle.com> Message-ID: Organization: ASARian.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk re: auto-responders... I thought that auto-responders were supposed to look at the incoming email to 'see' if it should be 'auto-responded' to? we use vacation and it looks for precedence: header with bulk and junk values to *not* send to, as well a few other headers that are likely to not be meaningfull. did I misremember something? fuz From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 21 06:05:44 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id GAA24187 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 06:03:51 -0700 Received: from unicorn.swi.com.sg (unicorn.swi.com.sg [202.0.71.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id GAA24182 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 06:03:45 -0700 Received: (from mathias@localhost) by unicorn.swi.com.sg (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA11611; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 21:03:44 +0800 Message-Id: <199506211303.VAA11611@unicorn.swi.com.sg> Subject: Re: Marie Franco's diligence To: bfleming@pinsight.com (Bob Fleming) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 21:03:42 +0800 (SST) Cc: dattier@wwa.com, bfleming@pinsight.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199506210224.TAA19822@utopia.pinsight.com> from "Bob Fleming" at Jun 20, 95 07:24:19 pm From: Mathias.Koerber@swi.com.sg (Mathias Koerber) Reply-To: Mathias.Koerber@swi.com.sg Organization: SWi, Singapore Disclaimer: My company pays me to work, not speak for them. So there ! X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 4142 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk According to Bob Fleming | From list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Wed Jun 21 20:12:11 1995 | Return-Path: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM | Received: from relay1.UU.NET (relay1.UU.NET [192.48.96.5]) by unicorn.swi.com.sg (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA10797 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 20:12:06 +0800 | Received: from miles.greatcircle.com by relay1.UU.NET with ESMTP | id QQyvag28320; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 22:37:47 -0400 | Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id TAA09852 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:24:06 -0700 | Received: from utopia.pinsight.com (utopia.pinsight.com [204.119.192.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id TAA09845 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:24:02 -0700 | Received: from ppp-s16.pinsight.com (ppp-s16.pinsight.com [204.119.192.116]) by utopia.pinsight.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA19822; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:24:19 -0700 | Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:24:19 -0700 | Message-Id: <199506210224.TAA19822@utopia.pinsight.com> | From: Bob Fleming | To: dattier@wwa.com, bfleming@pinsight.com | Subject: Re: Marie Franco's diligence | Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM | X-Mailer: ProntoIP [version 1.03] | Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM | Precedence: bulk | | >Every day when Marie Franco receives the digest her autoresponse sends this | >to the list, which in turn distributes it to everybody: | > | >| >This is a response from my "Mail Manager." It responds to any messages | > while | >| >I'm out of the office. I'm on a course June 19, 20, and 21. I'll be in | > on | >| >Thursday, June 22, and then away on holidays until the 18th of July. | > | >Bob Fleming commented: | > | >| Thanks for keeping us all posted. Will we be getting this message each | > day | >| until July 18th ... ;-) | > | >Apparently we will, Bob, except for June 22. No wonder she refers to her | >mail manager in quotes; it isn't the real thing. | > | >I wonder how many days the digest has consisted only of Marie's autoresponse | >to the previous day's digest (which in turn may have comprised nothing but | >her autoresponse the the one before). But darn it, that's an article for | > the | >list, so the next day there's another digest issue, and her acknowledgment | >comes in again to trigger another the day after, even though no one else has | >been submitting. If her autoreplier were configured right, there would be | > no | >mail for it to react to. The way this feeds on itself is truly funny. | > | >When digest subscribers to my lists misconfigure their autorepliers I tweak | >the list routines to prevent their blurbs from going out. If they're on the | >reflector distribution and sending their autoresponses to the authors, I | >switch them to digest so that they will stop annoying the other members and | >make note that they are not allowed EVER to return to the reflector. | > | > | | Yea! NEVER! Bannishment! I like it! Maybe we should talk behind her back | while she's away... spread rumors about her... Nah... better not: I hear | she's related to that Franco guy who ran Spain for a while. Heck, we could all | be shot at dawn. Maybe auto responders are not that bad. In fact, I like | them... yes, I really do... honest, General. | | -Roberto | I thought it was accepted wisdom that mailing list servers (like LISTSERV and majordomo) make sure the Return-To, Return-Raceipt-To and Errors-To headers are *not* set to the list, but to the original sender only to prevent this thing from happening. It's funny to see this happening on a mailing list for mailing-list admins :-( Mathias -- Mathias Koerber at SWi Tel: +65 / 7780066 x 29 14 Science Park Drive Fax: +65 / 7779401 #04-01 The Maxwell email: Mathias.Koerber@SWi.com.sg Singapore Science Park S'pore 0511 MK * Eifersucht ist eine Leidenschaft, die mit Eifer sucht, was Leiden schafft * From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 21 09:37:38 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id JAA00779 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 09:31:10 -0700 Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uumail2.netcom.com [163.179.3.52]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id JAA00773 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 09:31:07 -0700 Received: from znyx.com by netcomsv.netcom.com with SMTP (8.6.12/SMI-4.1) id JAA09780; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 09:30:39 -0700 Received: from alan.znyx.com by znyx.com (5.65/1.35) id AA07395; Wed, 21 Jun 95 09:27:07 -0700 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 09:27:07 -0700 Message-Id: <9506211627.AA07395@znyx.com> X-Sender: alan@znyx.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: alan@znyx.com (Alan Deikman) Subject: Re: Beginning Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >I would like to start a list at my Law school and I need some direction about >where to start. > Abandon any pretense of a social life for at least six months. Then you can start. -------------------------------- Alan Deikman, ZNYX Corporation alan@znyx.com From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 21 10:35:43 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id KAA02958 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:20:42 -0700 Received: from ix5.ix.netcom.com (ix5.ix.netcom.com [199.182.120.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id KAA02953 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:20:40 -0700 Received: from by ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.6.12/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id KAA06003; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:20:10 -0700 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:20:10 -0700 Message-Id: <199506211720.KAA06003@ix5.ix.netcom.com> From: alancz@ix.netcom.com (Alan Czarnek) Subject: Re: Beginning To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk You wrote: > >> >>I would like to start a list at my Law school and I need some direction about >>where to start. >> > >Abandon any pretense of a social life for at least six months. Then >you can start. > > Well, maybe. But I when I set up a list, I only had to abandon any pretense of a social life for about a week. I got an account at Webcom for $10 / month and use the majordomo that they have set up there.....it works great! So I only had to figure out how to set up the configuration file and I was in business.... see: http://webcom.com/ Alan Czarnek From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 21 11:36:37 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id LAA05007 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 11:11:55 -0700 Received: from gagme.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id LAA05002 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 11:11:49 -0700 Received: by gagme.wwa.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #8) id m0sOUIR-000FP4C; Wed, 21 Jun 95 13:14 CDT Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: Re: vacation programs To: fuzzy@panix.com (Fuzzy) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 13:14:38 -0500 (CDT) Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "Fuzzy" at Jun 21, 95 06:08:53 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 523 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk fuzzy@panix.com wrote, | I thought that auto-responders were supposed to look at the incoming | email to 'see' if it should be 'auto-responded' to? Absolutely right, Fuzzy. | we use vacation and it looks for precedence: header with bulk and junk | values to *not* send to, as well a few other headers that are likely to | not be meaningfull. Right again, Fuzzy. Ms. Franco's mail manager is something not as smart as vacation. | did I misremember something? Now there you're wrong: you didn't misremember anything. From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 21 19:35:31 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id TAA20931 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 19:09:59 -0700 Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu (WILMA.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.141]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id TAA20926 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 19:09:56 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK) id VAA19940; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 21:58:13 -0400 Message-Id: <199506220158.VAA19940@wilma.cs.utk.edu> X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/ From: Keith Moore To: Fuzzy cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: auto-responders In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Jun 1995 06:08:53 EDT." Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 21:58:07 -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > re: auto-responders... > > I thought that auto-responders were supposed to look at the incoming > email to 'see' if it should be 'auto-responded' to? we use vacation > and it looks for precedence: header with bulk and junk values to *not* > send to, as well a few other headers that are likely to not be > meaningfull. did I misremember something? There's no standard for what auto-responders are supposed to do. The 'precedence' header is also nonstandard, and is used for various dissimilar purposes that sometimes conflict with one another: queueing priority for sendmail, a "don't send vacation notices" flag, a "don't return content on bounces" flag for some versions of sendmail, or to tunnel the X.400 "priority" value. There are mail gateways that refuse to accept anything that has a precedence header with a value that they don't like. There are mailing list expanders that refuse to forward a message that has a "precedence: bulk" header. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for a standard way to do most of these things. There *is* a proposal for an Auto-Submitted header field that would mark messages that are automaticallly submitted (say for cron jobs), messages that are auto-replied (as in vacation), and also serve as an indicator for when to *not* reply to a message. To me, this sounds like just the thing, but some people want a more elaborate scheme. The upcoming delivery reports standards specify a way to say (in SMTP) "don't return content on bounces". Keith From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 21 20:35:35 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id UAA22408 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 20:33:39 -0700 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (searn.sunet.se [192.36.125.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id UAA22403 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 20:33:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199506220333.UAA22403@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6446; Thu, 22 Jun 95 05:29:42 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 4378; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 05:29:42 +0200 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 05:27:50 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: auto-responders To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 21 Jun 1995 21:58:07 -0400 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk And while all this talk is going on, we have, today, and have had for quite a while, a very simple de facto standard for determining if something comes from a list: the return path matches 'owner-*@*' or then '*-request@*'. This catches, oh, 99.9% of lists? Eric From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 21 21:35:34 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id VAA22970 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 21:14:54 -0700 Received: from gagme.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id VAA22965 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 21:14:51 -0700 Received: by gagme.wwa.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #8) id m0sOdi5-000FISC; Wed, 21 Jun 95 23:17 CDT Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: Re: auto-responders To: ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE (Eric Thomas) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 23:17:44 -0500 (CDT) Cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199506220333.UAA22403@miles.greatcircle.com> from "Eric Thomas" at Jun 22, 95 05:27:50 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 599 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric Thomas wrote, | And while all this talk is going on, we have, today, and have had for | quite a while, a very simple de facto standard for determining if | something comes from a list: the return path matches 'owner-*@*' or then | '*-request@*'. This catches, oh, 99.9% of lists? Well, let's consider the one at hand: Return-Path: I guess it doesn't catch this one nor most others running under M@j#rd!m%. Add *-owner@* to the two Eric named and then you'll cover almost all lists. DWT (whose lists have -request@ in their Return-Paths) From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 22 09:09:12 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id IAA10798 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 08:55:06 -0700 Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu (WILMA.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.141]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id IAA10793 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 08:55:02 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK) id LAA22854; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 11:55:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199506221555.LAA22854@wilma.cs.utk.edu> X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/ From: Keith Moore To: Eric Thomas cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: auto-responders In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Jun 1995 05:27:50 +0200." <199506220333.UAA22403@miles.greatcircle.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 11:55:08 -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > And while all this talk is going on, we have, today, and have had for > quite a while, a very simple de facto standard for determining if > something comes from a list: the return path matches 'owner-*@*' or then > '*-request@*'. This catches, oh, 99.9% of lists? My guess is something more like 85%. But yes, it's a very good heuristic. Keith From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 23 18:35:33 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id SAA04244 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 18:09:41 -0700 Received: from chinacat.unicom.com (chinacat.unicom.com [192.108.105.34]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id SAA04239 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 18:09:35 -0700 Received: (from chip@localhost) by chinacat.unicom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id UAA27715 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 20:09:58 -0500 (CDT) From: Chip Rosenthal Message-Id: <199506240109.UAA27715@chinacat.unicom.com> Subject: have you seen this To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (The List-Managers Mailing List) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 20:09:57 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 902 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This appeared in the -request mbox for a musical list I run. Has anybody else seen this? Axl Paul AnD Co. writes: > Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 11:24:30 -0400 > From: pr93026@ulise.cs.pub.ro (Axl Paul AnD Co.) > Message-Id: <9506231524.AA03744@ulise.cs.pub.ro> > To: shot-of-rhythm-request@chinacat.unicom.com > > Hi to you ! > We are two students from Romania and we are going to > present you our situation. > We are students at the "Politehnica" University in Bucharest > Romania (Eastern Europe), the Computer Science Department. > Our common hobby is the computer programming and we are > here asking for your help. [masive deletia] -- Chip Rosenthal They said I was just a dumb cowpoke. Unicom Systems Development I didn't want to make a fuss. - Robert Earl Keen For a good time: http://www.unicom.com/john-hiatt/ PGP key: http://www.unicom.com/personal/chip.html From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 23 19:35:34 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id TAA05046 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:27:32 -0700 Received: from suntan.Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id TAA05041 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:27:29 -0700 Received: from adm.loc3.tandem.com by suntan.Tandem.com (4.1/suntan5.950313) for list-managers@greatcircle.com id AA27850; Fri, 23 Jun 95 19:27:21 PDT Received: from zorch.loc3.tandem.com by adm.loc3.tandem.com (4.1/6main.940209) id AA08488; Fri, 23 Jun 95 19:27:20 PDT Received: by zorch.loc3.tandem.com (4.1/6leaf.940209) id AA27399; Fri, 23 Jun 95 19:27:18 PDT Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 19:27:18 PDT From: scott@loc3.tandem.com (mueller_scott) Message-Id: <9506240227.AA27399@zorch.loc3.tandem.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: have you seen this X-Envelope-To: chip@unicom.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Got a couple. Ignored them. \scott >This appeared in the -request mbox for a musical list I run. >Has anybody else seen this? > >> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 11:24:30 -0400 >> From: pr93026@ulise.cs.pub.ro (Axl Paul AnD Co.) >> Hi to you ! >> We are two students from Romania and we are going to >> present you our situation. From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 23 19:38:35 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id TAA05032 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:25:22 -0700 Received: from gagme.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id TAA05027 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:25:17 -0700 Received: by gagme.wwa.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #8) id m0sPKxm-000FPjC; Fri, 23 Jun 95 21:28 CDT Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: Re: have you seen this To: chip@unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 21:28:50 -0500 (CDT) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199506240109.UAA27715@chinacat.unicom.com> from "Chip Rosenthal" at Jun 23, 95 08:09:57 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 523 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk | This appeared in the -request mbox for a musical list I run. | Has anybody else seen this? Probably everybody else. The -request addresses for the two lists I run (Party of Five and Toyota Corolla) each got one. These people seemed to think either that writing to every list's administrative address would reach every member of every mailing list or that people running mailing lists had lots of extra hardware to give away [including paying for shipping]. The purpose of the list didn't matter to them in the least. From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 23 19:41:40 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id TAA05009 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:21:37 -0700 Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id TAA05004 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:21:33 -0700 Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA20706 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for greatcircle.com!list-managers); Fri, 23 Jun 1995 20:52:08 -0500 Received: by bonkers.taronga.com (smail2.5p) id AA28280; 23 Jun 95 20:51:21 CDT (Fri) Received: (from arielle@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id UAA28277 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 20:51:21 -0500 From: Stephanie da Silva Message-Id: <199506240151.UAA28277@bonkers.taronga.com> Subject: have you seen this To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 20:51:20 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 716 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: Chip Rosenthal > This appeared in the -request mbox for a musical list I run. > Has anybody else seen this? > > Axl Paul AnD Co. writes: > > > > Hi to you ! > > We are two students from Romania and we are going to > > present you our situation. I have not only seen it, I've seen it multiple times. I've received it at least 30 times. I complained to the postmaster about it and it appears to have stopped. Is that what they're doing? Using the PAML (or the MLoL)? I figured they had a broken mailer or something cause I couldn't figure out why they were so fixated on me. All were received at my regular email address tho, nothing came to my mailing list contact address. From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 23 22:35:33 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id WAA07675 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 22:33:11 -0700 Received: from relay4.UU.NET (relay4.UU.NET [192.48.96.14]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id WAA07669 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 22:33:06 -0700 Received: from postmodern.com by relay4.UU.NET with SMTP id QQyvlu14133; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 01:33:31 -0400 Received: by postmodern.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4/950522-mcb1) id AA03016; Fri, 23 Jun 95 22:25:18 PDT Message-Id: <9506240525.AA03016@postmodern.com> From: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 22:25:17 -0700 In-Reply-To: <199506240151.UAA28277@bonkers.taronga.com> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: have you seen this content-length: 876 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > This appeared in the -request mbox for a musical list I run. > > Has anybody else seen this? > > > > Axl Paul AnD Co. writes: > > > > > > Hi to you ! > > > We are two students from Romania and we are going to > > > present you our situation. > > [...] > > Is that what they're doing? Using the PAML (or the MLoL)? I figured > they had a broken mailer or something cause I couldn't figure out why > they were so fixated on me. It's more than the PAML (or another list-of-lists). I got copies at all or almost all of the public contact mailboxes for INFOBAHN (letters@postmodern.com, editorial@postmodern.com, etc.) which are not in any list-of-lists but are in the magazine and, more to the point, on our Web pages. And a copy to my personal address, which might have come from the MLOL. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com http://www.postmodern.com/ From list-managers-owner Sat Jun 24 01:37:24 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id BAA12655 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 01:17:59 -0700 Received: from prostar.com (smtp.prostar.com [204.57.131.190]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id BAA12649 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 01:17:56 -0700 Message-Id: <199506240817.BAA12649@miles.greatcircle.com> From: tsx-bbs.smtp@prostar.com Reply-To: tsx-bbs.smtp@prostar.com Subject: Unrecognized recipient in message To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM X-Mailer: TSX-BBS Date: Sat, 24 Jun 95 00:50:05 PDT Organization: ProStar Internet Gateway Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk You recently sent a message to success@prostar.com which could not be delivered. There is no person with this name at ProStar Internet Gateway. Your message was discarded since there is no mail clerk at this TSX-BBS site designated for manual routing duties. If you plan to send this recipient additional mail in the future, please obtain a corrected address. From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 26 11:38:30 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id LAA18587 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 11:10:01 -0700 Received: from netmail2.microsoft.com (netmail2.microsoft.com [131.107.1.13]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id LAA18582 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 11:09:58 -0700 Received: by netmail2.microsoft.com (5.65/25-eef) id AA05410; Mon, 26 Jun 95 11:37:15 -0700 Message-Id: <9506261837.AA05410@netmail2.microsoft.com> Received: by netmail2 using fxenixd 1.0 Mon, 26 Jun 95 11:37:15 PDT X-Msmail-Message-Id: B1220EEC X-Msmail-Conversation-Id: B1220EEC From: Benjamin Holz To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 11:08:32 TZ Subject: Mailing list Manager statistics Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Everyone, I'm sorry if this information is available in a FAQ somewhere. I've looked in every conceivable place and couldn't find this information. What I'm looking for is the statistics for mailing list management (mlm) software. This is the info in particular that I'm looking for: 1. What percentage of mailing lists out there are managed by mlm software as opposed to manual operation? 2. What is the breakdown of usage for mlm software? ie. ListServ %60, Majordomo %30, etc. 3. Is there any breakdown of the popularity of mailing lists? i.e. windsurf-l 894 members, msmail-l 300 members I would greatly appreciate any information or ideas for finding this information. Thanks, Ben Holz. t-benho@microsoft.com From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 26 13:17:01 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id MAA22460 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 12:43:37 -0700 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (searn.sunet.se [192.36.125.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id MAA22427 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 12:41:54 -0700 Message-Id: <199506261941.MAA22427@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0364; Mon, 26 Jun 95 21:37:54 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 5303; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 21:37:52 +0200 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 21:07:59 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics To: list-managers@greatcircle.com, Benjamin Holz In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 26 Jun 95 11:08:32 TZ from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 26 Jun 95 11:08:32 TZ Benjamin Holz said: >1. What percentage of mailing lists out there are managed by mlm >software as opposed to manual operation? Nowadays my guess is that very few lists over say 20-50 people are managed manually. But since it's nearly impossible to count the manual lists (most of them aren't advertised outside a small circle), statistics can't be made. >2. What is the breakdown of usage for mlm software? ie. ListServ %60, >Majordomo %30, etc. LISTSERV is the only product that currently gathers usage statistics, so it's probably impossible to make that kind of comparison. LISTSERV currently manages 18364 lists with a total membership of 2285422 and delivers about 10M messages on an average business day. >3. Is there any breakdown of the popularity of mailing lists? i.e. >windsurf-l 894 members, msmail-l 300 members This info is available for each public LISTSERV mailing list, but of course there are many of them. What are you looking for exactly? Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 26 14:53:37 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id OAA27396 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 14:21:55 -0700 Received: from Rt66.com (mack.rt66.com [198.59.162.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id OAA27391 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 14:21:48 -0700 Received: by Rt66.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21849; Mon, 26 Jun 95 15:20:07 MDT From: lazlo@Rt66.com (Lazlo Nibble) Message-Id: <9506262120.AA21849@Rt66.com> Subject: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 15:20:07 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 402 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > LISTSERV currently manages 18364 lists with a total membership of > 2285422 and delivers about 10M messages on an average business day. Is that total addresses subscribed or total *unique* addresses subscribed? I expect many people are on more than one list. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@rt66.com - http://www.rt66.com/lazlo) ::: Search Nibble's Discographies! http://www.rt66.com/lazlo/DiscogSearch.html From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 26 16:05:56 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id QAA02195 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 16:00:30 -0700 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (searn.sunet.se [192.36.125.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id QAA02176 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 16:00:24 -0700 Message-Id: <199506262300.QAA02176@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1088; Tue, 27 Jun 95 00:56:36 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 8836; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 00:56:36 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 00:37:45 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 26 Jun 1995 15:20:07 -0600 (MDT) from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 26 Jun 1995 15:20:07 -0600 (MDT) Lazlo Nibble said: >Is that total addresses subscribed or total *unique* addresses >subscribed? I expect many people are on more than one list. For privacy reasons, you can't collect all the addresses to a central site to determine uniqueness. I've never really made a scientific survey but while the most active list subscribers are indeed enthusiastic network people who are subscribed to say a dozen lists each, typically people with some sort of computer background, the bulk are people who don't know anything about computers and subscribe to one or maybe two lists as part of their job, or because the list focuses on their professional interest. To take a local example, on SEARN I run a number of lists on technical and network topics of interest to people in Sweden, and there I see a lot of duplicates. The large lists though are about subfield X of research topic Y and there is virtually no duplication, at least not within SEARN. The people who subscribe to the fish ecology list aren't interested in the lactobacillae list or the list about usage of information technology to teach English in Swedish classrooms. In most cases the list owner had never heard of mailing lists before and needs to be trained from scratch :-( I can also see that there isn't any other LISTSERV list about the same topic because before creating a list I make sure it isn't redundant. But of course there could be Majordomo lists on these same topics and I might not know about them. I too would like to know the size of the total worldwide mailing list user community, but I'm afraid that it's very much like trying to estimate the number of users on the Internet :-) Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 26 16:36:44 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id QAA02902 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 16:13:52 -0700 Received: from campino.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (campino.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE [137.226.225.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id QAA02897 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 16:13:49 -0700 Received: from tabaqui (tabaqui.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE) by campino.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (4.1/campino-7) id AA11633; Tue, 27 Jun 95 01:14:03 +0200 Received: by tabaqui (4.1/POOLMH.3) id AA05276; Tue, 27 Jun 95 01:13:28 +0200 Message-Id: <9506262313.AA05276@tabaqui> From: berg@pool.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE (Stephen R. van den Berg) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 01:13:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: Chip Rosenthal's message as of 1995 Jun 23 Fri 20:09. <199506240109.UAA27715@chinacat.unicom.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (The List-Managers Mailing List) Subject: Re: have you seen this Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> Hi to you ! >> We are two students from Romania and we are going to >> present you our situation. About two months ago this exact same letter appeared in a newsgroup (I think it was comp.mailinglist-list.software or somesuch). -- Sincerely, berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless). Real programmers don't just die, they produce core dumps. From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 26 19:37:27 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id TAA10901 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 19:28:05 -0700 Received: from THE-SPA.COM (the-spa.com [204.97.227.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id TAA10885 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 19:27:57 -0700 From: christopher.zimmerman@the-spa.com Received: by the-spa.com id 0VO3M00Q Mon, 26 Jun 95 22:32:36 Message-ID: <9506262232.0VO3M00@the-spa.com> Organization: the spa! 32 Lines, SLIP/PPP Access, TBBS 2.3+IPAD 413.536.4365 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 22:32:36 Subject: Mailing To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Please send me a list of issues related to Internet mailing lists. From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 27 06:08:01 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id FAA23271 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 05:59:44 -0700 Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.164.101]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id FAA23266 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 05:59:41 -0700 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 9:00:32 EDT From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Reply-To: info-labview-request@pica.army.mil Message-ID: <9506270900.aa06534@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric Thomas wrote: >Benjamin Holz said: >>1. What percentage of mailing lists out there are managed by mlm >>software as opposed to manual operation? > >Nowadays my guess is that very few lists over say 20-50 people are >managed manually. But since it's nearly impossible to count the manual >lists (most of them aren't advertised outside a small circle), statistics >can't be made. That's an interesting assertion. Anyone interested in doing a straw poll on this? Send me a note (put SURVEY in the subject) telling me how you admin your list including the MLM you use, if any, and what the number of subscribers is. I'll collect answers for a week or so (make that 2 weeks, I'll be out riding motorcycles at Watkins Glen next week:-}) and then post a summary. Results will have the usual caveats attached... Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 27 07:36:13 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id HAA25446 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 07:13:14 -0700 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (searn.sunet.se [192.36.125.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id HAA25440 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 07:13:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199506271413.HAA25440@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3306; Tue, 27 Jun 95 16:09:29 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 7506; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 16:09:28 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 16:03:03 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics To: list-managers@greatcircle.com, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 27 Jun 95 9:00:32 EDT from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 27 Jun 95 9:00:32 EDT Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer said: >Anyone interested in doing a straw poll on this? Send me a note (put >SURVEY in the subject) telling me how you admin your list including the >MLM you use, if any, and what the number of subscribers is. Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but this is a list for people who use mailing list managers. So, if you ask the people on this list whether they maintain their list manually or not, chances are that you'll find an overwhelming majority of people who don't. Furthermore, this is by and large a Majordomo list. You won't find many LISTSERV or ListProc or SmartList people here. I know that this isn't what the list is *supposed* to be, but this is what the list *is*, due to its location. To wit, the ratio of Majordomo to say ListProc questions posted to the list... Actually I think the ratio of Majordomo to LISTSERV questions is still infinite ;-) If you're going to make a poll, you'll probably have to take a large list whose membership can be reasonably considered to span all sorts of backgrounds and cultures (say a list like TOPTEN which all sorts of people subscribe to), and ask them if they're subscribed to lists, and how many, and how they're maintained. TOPTEN isn't a good example though because the list of subscribers isn't public, but you get the idea. Eric From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 27 08:48:19 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id IAA27549 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 08:30:01 -0700 Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.164.101]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id IAA27541 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 08:29:58 -0700 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 11:30:51 EDT From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Message-ID: <9506271130.aa07949@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric Thomas wrote: >Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer said: >>Anyone interested in doing a straw poll on this? Send me a note (put >>SURVEY in the subject) telling me how you admin your list including the >>MLM you use, if any, and what the number of subscribers is. > >Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but this is a list for people who >use mailing list managers. Sorry, Eric: You're wrong. It's for people who run mailing lists. Automated or otherwise. >ratio of Majordomo to say ListProc questions posted to the list... Should be the same, actually. Zero to zero equals zero. >Actually I think the ratio of Majordomo to LISTSERV questions is still >infinite ;-) :-} >a large list whose membership can be reasonably considered to span all >sorts of backgrounds and cultures (say a list like TOPTEN which all sorts >of people subscribe to), and ask them if they're subscribed to lists, and >how many, and how they're maintained. TOPTEN isn't a good example though >because the list of subscribers isn't public, but you get the idea. I disagree. But that's OK. Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 27 09:39:14 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id JAA28465 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 09:07:07 -0700 Received: from suntan.Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id JAA28451 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 09:07:02 -0700 Received: from adm.loc3.tandem.com by suntan.Tandem.com (4.1/suntan5.950313) for list-managers@greatcircle.com id AA00815; Tue, 27 Jun 95 09:07:32 PDT Received: from zorch.loc3.tandem.com by adm.loc3.tandem.com (4.1/6main.940209) id AA03757; Tue, 27 Jun 95 09:07:31 PDT Received: by zorch.loc3.tandem.com (4.1/6leaf.940209) id AA26643; Tue, 27 Jun 95 09:07:28 PDT Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 09:07:28 PDT From: scott@loc3.tandem.com (mueller_scott) Message-Id: <9506271607.AA26643@zorch.loc3.tandem.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics X-Envelope-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but this is a list for people who >use mailing list managers. My goodness, then I must be on the wrong list. I was under the impression, directly from Brent, that this was for people who manage mailing lists. As we all know Eric is never wrong, at least those who can read filled right- justified text without major eyestrain, can anyone tell me where I find this other list? \scott From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 27 10:06:42 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id JAA29784 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 09:53:00 -0700 Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.164.101]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id JAA29779 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 09:52:57 -0700 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 12:53:50 EDT From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Message-ID: <9506271253.aa08925@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Scott Mueller: >>Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but this is a list for people who >>use mailing list managers. > >My goodness, then I must be on the wrong list. I was under the impression, >directly from Brent, that this was for people who manage mailing lists. As >we all know Eric is never wrong, at least those who can read filled right- >justified text without major eyestrain, can anyone tell me where I find this >other list? Damned if I know. My lists are all run manually. And yes, fully-justified text is a bear to read. Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 27 10:11:45 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id JAA29319 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 09:41:42 -0700 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (searn.sunet.se [192.36.125.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id JAA29299 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 09:41:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199506271641.JAA29299@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4077; Tue, 27 Jun 95 18:37:53 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 0918; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 18:37:53 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 17:49:59 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics To: list-managers@greatcircle.com, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 27 Jun 95 11:30:51 EDT from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 27 Jun 95 11:30:51 EDT Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer said: >Sorry, Eric: You're wrong. It's for people who run mailing lists. >Automated or otherwise. I see. Well, the fact that I didn't even know we were also discussing manually maintained lists says a lot about just how well manual lists are represented on this list. >>ratio of Majordomo to say ListProc questions posted to the list... > >Should be the same, actually. Zero to zero equals zero. Zero to zero may occasionally equal zero if you're talking about the limit of an integral, series or the like and the function is such that the limit of the quotient is zero. Here we're talking about a denumerable set so this is plain old fashioned arithmetics and zero to zero is undefined. But nevermind. Anyway, you may want to take a look at the archives. There was a long, long discussion about how to handle the countless Majordomo questions that were being sent here even though they belonged to Majordomo-users. >>a large list whose membership can be reasonably considered to span all >>sorts of backgrounds and cultures (say a list like TOPTEN which all >>sorts of people subscribe to), and ask them if they're subscribed to >>lists, and how many, and how they're maintained. TOPTEN isn't a good >>example though because the list of subscribers isn't public, but you >>get the idea. > >I disagree. But that's OK. It's not ok really, but it's normal. Statistics and probabilities aren't particularly simple or intuitive sciences. In our everyday lives we seldom have to worry about rigorously majoring error margins and the like. We make ballpark estimates based on our intuition and that's good enough. When we're not sure we ask around. But of course when the issue at hand is making a statement like "x% of lists are managed this way", we have to be more careful, especially as the statement will be repeated and become an urban legend. The truth is that no one knows and the normal statistical approaches would require a large sample in order to properly represent all professional fields, countries, cultures, types of connectivity, etc. And yes, there are significant variations from one to the other. Eric From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 27 11:35:46 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id KAA01935 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 10:42:27 -0700 Received: from suntan.Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id KAA01929 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 10:42:23 -0700 Received: from adm.loc3.tandem.com by suntan.Tandem.com (4.1/suntan5.950313) for list-managers@greatcircle.com id AA05093; Tue, 27 Jun 95 10:42:52 PDT Received: from zorch.loc3.tandem.com by adm.loc3.tandem.com (4.1/6main.940209) id AA04960; Tue, 27 Jun 95 10:42:52 PDT Received: by zorch.loc3.tandem.com (4.1/6leaf.940209) id AA27964; Tue, 27 Jun 95 10:42:50 PDT Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 10:42:50 PDT From: scott@loc3.tandem.com (mueller_scott) Message-Id: <9506271742.AA27964@zorch.loc3.tandem.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics X-Envelope-To: info-labview-request@pica.army.mil Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >My lists are all run manually. And yes, fully-justified text is a bear to >read. Me too; 4 lists. \scott From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 27 12:36:03 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id LAA03888 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 11:50:52 -0700 Received: from cesium.clock.org (cesium.clock.org [17.255.4.43]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id LAA03876 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 11:50:49 -0700 Received: by cesium.clock.org with SMTP id <5683>; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 11:51:19 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Jun 1995 10:42:50 PDT." <9506271742.AA27964@zorch.loc3.tandem.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 11:51:14 -0700 From: Jean Marie Diaz Message-Id: <95Jun27.115119pdt.5683@cesium.clock.org> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 10:42:50 -0700 From: scott@loc3.tandem.com (mueller_scott) >My lists are all run manually. And yes, fully-justified text is a bear to >read. Me too; 4 lists. Six manual lists from home. An ever-changing number from work, but since those are listserv lists (and let me add that listserv was NOT my first choice for the job--I got overruled by a VP), they are conveniently included in Eric's statistics. AMBAR From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 27 12:39:29 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id LAA03712 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 11:47:51 -0700 Received: from [198.102.244.46] (gca-mac-46.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.46]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id LAA03702; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 11:47:47 -0700 X-Sender: brent@miles.greatcircle.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 11:48:17 -0800 To: Eric Thomas , list-managers@greatcircle.com, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer From: Brent@GreatCircle.COM (Brent Chapman) Subject: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 16:03 6/27/95, Eric Thomas wrote: >On Tue, 27 Jun 95 9:00:32 EDT Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer > said: > >>Anyone interested in doing a straw poll on this? Send me a note (put >>SURVEY in the subject) telling me how you admin your list including the >>MLM you use, if any, and what the number of subscribers is. > >Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but this is a list for people who >use mailing list managers. No, it isn't; it's for people who manage mailing lists, regardless of how they do it. From the "info" file for List-Managers: This list is for discussions of issues related to managing Internet mailing lists, including (but not limited to) methods, mechanisms, techniques, policies, and software (in general; questions about specific software packages should be directed to the mailing list dedicated to that particular package). -Brent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For info about the Internet Security Firewalls Tutorial and a schedule of upcoming dates, please send email to Tutorial-Info@GreatCircle.COM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brent Chapman Great Circle Associates Brent@GreatCircle.COM 1057 West Dana Street +1 415 962 0841 Mountain View, CA 94041 From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 27 15:05:59 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id OAA11297 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 14:44:35 -0700 Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with ESMTP id OAA11291 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 14:44:32 -0700 Received: from ifi.uio.no by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-950602) id OAA17279; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 14:41:37 -0700 Received: from gjalp.ifi.uio.no (1232@gjalp.ifi.uio.no [129.240.84.2]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 23:39:15 +0200 From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by gjalp.ifi.uio.no ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 23:39:15 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 23:39:15 +0200 Message-Id: <199506272139.14139.gjalp.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> To: ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE CC: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-reply-to: <199506271641.JAA29299@miles.greatcircle.com> (message from Eric Thomas on Tue, 27 Jun 1995 17:49:59 +0200) Subject: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [Eric Thomas] | But of course when the issue at hand is making a statement like | "x% of lists are managed this way", we have to be more careful, | especially as the statement will be repeated and become an urban | legend. Well, at least we can test your assertion: that very few lists with more than 50 subscribers are run manually. I've sent my survey entry to Tom. Kjetil T. From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 27 16:08:26 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id PAA13413 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 15:43:19 -0700 Received: from jazzie.com (p8.jazzie.com [192.147.229.18]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) with SMTP id PAA13408 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 15:43:15 -0700 Received: by jazzie.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #63) id m0sQjMP-000OYFC; Tue, 27 Jun 95 15:44 PDT Message-Id: From: sds@jazzie.com (Sean Shapira) Subject: Re: Mailing list Manager statistics To: kjetilho@ifi.uio.no (Kjetil Torgrim Homme) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 15:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE, list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199506272139.14139.gjalp.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> from "Kjetil Torgrim Homme" at Jun 27, 95 11:39:15 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 847 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Kjetil wrote: > Well, at least we can test [the] assertion: that very few lists with > more than 50 subscribers are run manually. I'm fascinated by the subject of manually run lists. Just last night I reluctantly converted a pet list of mine (with 64 recipients) from manual to majordomo administration, which gave me cause to think about list management in general. I wonder first what others mean when they write that a list is "run manually". Is that a list where administrative requests are handled manually, or one where message distribution requires human intervention? Or are people using "run manually" as a synonym for "administered manually?" -- Sean Shapira sds@jazzie.com +1 206 443 2028 Sean's Home Page Serving the Net since 1990. From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 27 22:05:41 1995 Received: (daemon@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id VAA24593 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 21:48:25 -0700 Rece