From List-Managers-Owner Mon May 10 02:09:23 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA18699; Mon, 10 May 93 02:09:23 GMT Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA18683; Sun, 9 May 93 19:09:10 PDT Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN) id AA07019; Sun, 9 May 93 22:09:25 EDT From: "F. Scott Ophof" Message-Id: <9305100209.AA07019@CS.UWindsor.Ca> Subject: If this happens to a Unix MLM? To: (List managers) Date: Sun, 9 May 93 22:09:24 EDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Status: OR What if the following happens to one or more of the Unix MLMs? Can such errors be dealt with properly? Regards. $$\ --------------(summary of a few postings on LSTSRV-L)--------------- On 6 May 1993 14:22:20 GMT Jeffrey R Kell said: > Thu, 6 May 1993 08:18:51 EDT Elliott Parker said: >>On Wed, 5 May 1993 16:52:15 EDT Neither Rain nor Sleet... said: >>>By any chance, was user "Stu Nuttall" U9230106@CPC865.EAST-ANGLIA.AC.UK ? >>>He did same thing here last week. Sub, then immediate conceal >>Ole' Stu did the same trick on four of my lists last week, too. >Hey! That's the turkey that hit four of my lists (and I've only got maybe >a dozen). What is this -- is he going for the Guinness Book of World Records >for Mail Bounces!?!? On 6 May 1993 13:52:06 GMT Mario Rups said: >>Stu Nuttall subscribed to about 50 of our lists here ... >And tried to apply to our one -- thank goodness we've a "private" list: he >never responded to our request for a profile! And thank you all for the >warning, he shan't get on our list, now. >One of my colleagues wonders if the guy is a newbie going hogwild, unaware >of the trouble he's getting into. Me, I'd say it's deliberate -- I mean, >really, 50 lists from just one site?! Plus all the others?! The guy's a >nutcase. On 6 May 1993 14:23:43 GMT Paul Goodwin said: >Hmmm...on further investigation, I've discovered that this "Stu Nuttall" has >subbed to about 10 public lists here (that's nearly every publicly available >list we maintain.) >I think we may have a problem...any suggested solutions? I think the only >reason I don't have him on any more lists is that he's served out... On 6 May 1993 14:33:39 GMT Paul Goodwin said: >I'm having Stu removed from all lists at my site and served off. He's >obviously some nut case, and I don't plan to deal with him anymore. He's >welcome to try calling me if he REALLY wants all that mail... ;) On 6 May 1993 14:50:31 GMT Dave Gomberg said: >Stu Nuthall also got bounced mail from PCBUILD. Can someone explain >what the "serve out" business is? I got the sub and the conceal part >but the rest of the trick baffles me. Dave On 6 May 1993 15:33:26 GMT Valdis Kletnieks said: >On Wed, 5 May 1993 18:46:07 EDT Ira Gold said: >>Stu Nuttall also hit UMDD (University of Maryland at College Park). >You guys are all lucky. I'm the one who's got the Listserv 'closest' >to the UK - guess who's seeing about 700+ bounces a day? >On a related note, can anybody explain why these are getting dropped >on me instead of the originating listserv? I'm about ->this<- close to >stuffing in a 'signoff * (global' for this guy.... On 6 May 1993 14:52:38 GMT Dave Gomberg said: >On what to do about Stu Nuthall, why not tell his postm we will bar anyone >from that node from any of our lists? That way it is not our problem >any more, it is the postmaster's. What do y'all think? Dave On 6 May 1993 17:25:00 GMT Jim Cocks said: >In reply to Dave Gomberg >I'll wager that if someone at UCSF abuses their computer privilege you >don't penalize every one else who happens to have an account! Let's >not get hysterical. Individual problems are handled individually. I, >for one, have not seen anything since Monday morning. If it persists >then contact the postmaster and ask for assistance or a contact point >to further deal with the individual. >I think you will find that a polite call for assistance will do far >more toward resolving such conflicts than any Rambo actions would. On 6 May 1993 16:22:05 GMT Eric Thomas said: >This is all fine except that, in the vast majority of cases, the users >that get served out are non-compliant mailers or gateways. What they >report is delivery errors for mailing lists. If you just trash them you >will never know about the problem. On 6 May 1993 17:26:06 GMT Marty Hoag said: >On Thu, 6 May 1993 09:36:18 EDT Jim Cocks said: >>Stu made quite a nuisance of himself here as well! > In our LISTSERV log from Friday, April 30, I see X-FOR FWDED items from >LISTSERV@BITNIC subscribing U9230106@CPC865.EAST-ANGLIA.AC.UK to our ACADV >list. This was at 07:44 EDT (6:44 our time). This was followed about five >minutes later with ADA-LAW, AG-EXP-L, ANN-LOTS, etc. You get the picture - >they were in alphabetical order. > I suspect the person just submitted a file with SUB to all the lists >but it might be interesting to have BITNIC check their logs from around that >time if they still have them... > I agree this is very anti-social behaviour but I guess before I would like >to know the mechanism before I light the fuse... ;-) marty On 6 May 1993 13:32:21 GMT Sathaye, Shashi said: >He (?) subscribed to all of our open lists. I was wondering if uk in ukcc >was confused for a country name.. >I think this must be a program playing with peoples lists. >What is bad is, I quiet deleted it from all lists and couple of owners >added the id back.. :-( > I decided to let them suffer.. A listserv sweeper can take only this much.. On 6 May 1993 13:44:58 GMT POSTMAST@ALBNYVM1.BITNET said: >I'll be glad to donate 3 feet of used fiber-optic - who is closest NAD >to East-Anglia ?? >He must have automated his subscriptions to be that much of a nuisance - >is there such a thing as a "quiet serve ... off ( netwide, permanent ? ) >or is it simpler to crazy-glue his index finger tips into his ears ? On 6 May 1993 15:40:45 GMT Paul M. Karagianis said: >If this thread keeps going the way it's been going we'll be ready by >sundown to throw a public keg-party/lynching. This might just be some >freshman liberal arts major who did his one computer based homework >assignment for the year and went home without logging off. As these >kinds of pranks go it's pretty innocuous. On the other hand it's a >pretty day on the US east coast and a keg-party/lynching sounds like >fun. -Kary. . From List-Managers-Owner Mon May 10 05:09:19 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA19006; Mon, 10 May 93 05:09:19 GMT Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA18952; Sun, 9 May 93 22:07:59 PDT Message-Id: <9305100507.AA18952@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: "F. Scott Ophof" Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM (List managers) Subject: Re: If this happens to a Unix MLM? In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 9 May 93 22:09:24 EDT Date: Sun, 09 May 93 22:07:58 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk # Status: OR # # What if the following happens to one or more of the Unix MLMs? # Can such errors be dealt with properly? Majordomo doesn't do anything automatic with bounces; they go back to the list owners. At the Majordomo sites that I run (GreatCircle.COM and USENIX.ORG), there is a special list called "bounces". If somebody's mail starts bouncing, they get unsubscribed from the list(s) they were on and subscribed to "bounces". The "bounces" list is rigged so that any bounce messages for it go to /dev/null. Once a day, a "cron" job sends a message to "bounces" that tells people why they're there and how to get back on the list they were thrown off of. As some of you have discovered (:-), I'm pretty agressive about moving people to the "bounces" list. I don't really care if they're new subscribers or the pope; if they bounce, they lose, before my mailbox starts filling up. There's a nice little script included with the Majordomo release called "bounce"; I just say "bounce
", and away go troubles, down the drain... (sorry, been watching too much TV tonight...) That's been adequate for every situation I've run in to so far. The worst cases are where mail sits in somebody's queue for a week or a month and _then_ starts timing out and bouncing; there's already a timeout-period's worth of mail stacked up in the queue behind it, before I even became aware of the problem. Fortunately, none of my lists are so busy (these days! Firewalls was certainly an exception early on) that they have more than a handful of messages a week. -Brent -- Brent Chapman Great Circle Associates Brent@GreatCircle.COM 1057 West Dana Street +1 415 962 0841 Mountain View, CA 94041 From List-Managers-Owner Mon May 10 10:26:38 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA20076; Mon, 10 May 93 10:26:38 GMT Received: from sally.informatik.rwth-aachen.de by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA20069; Mon, 10 May 93 03:26:25 PDT Received: from hathi (hathi.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE) by sally.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (4.1/sally-2) id AA27612; Mon, 10 May 93 12:26:34 +0200 Received: by hathi (4.1/POOL.3) id AA23037; Mon, 10 May 93 12:27:34 +0200 Message-Id: <9305101027.AA23037@hathi> From: berg@pool.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE (Stephen R. van den Berg) Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 12:27:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: "F. Scott Ophof"'s message as of 1993 May 9 Sun 22:09. <9305100209.AA07019@CS.UWindsor.Ca> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: If this happens to a Unix MLM? Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "F. Scott Ophof" wrote: >What if the following happens to one or more of the Unix MLMs? >Can such errors be dealt with properly? The procmail-mailinglist package handles those bounces automatically. If installed with the standard parameters, the offending mail address gets automatically removed from the list (and gets sent a notification to this extent) after generating four bounces (this limit can of course be raised or lowered to taste). -- Sincerely, berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless). berg@physik.tu-muenchen.de You are currently aboard a fully automated plane. There is no pilot on board. Rest assured, you have nothing to worry about... worry about... worry about... From List-Managers-Owner Mon May 10 14:36:16 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA20497; Mon, 10 May 93 14:36:16 GMT Received: from cheviot.ncl.ac.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA20490; Mon, 10 May 93 07:35:47 PDT Received: from turing.ncl.ac.uk by cheviot.ncl.ac.uk id (5.65cVUW/NCL-CMA.1.35 for ) with SMTP; Mon, 10 May 1993 15:36:39 +0100 From: "John Martin" Message-Id: Subject: Re: If this happens to a Unix MLM? To: ophof@CS.UWindsor.Ca (F. Scott Ophof) Date: Mon, 10 May 93 15:36:34 WET DST Cc: In-Reply-To: <9305100209.AA07019@CS.UWindsor.Ca>; from "F. Scott Ophof" at May 9, 93 10:09 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Re: > > What if the following happens to one or more of the Unix MLMs? > Can such errors be dealt with properly? > If this guy joins a Mailbase list, the non-delivery report of his joining will bounce back to mailbase-helpline@mailbase.ac.uk. We have an 'autoreply' which will do a 'remove mailname' which removes a member from all our available lists. It requires a minimal of human intervention. If a user joins a list and their mail bounces subsequently, then it is up to the list owner to remove the member. Because we 'trust' the 'From:' field, we get this happening occasionally. Cheers, John -- AKA: postmaster@mailbase.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------- John Martin Computing Laboratory 091 222 8087 University of Newcastle upon Tyne John.Martin@newcastle.ac.uk Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From List-Managers-Owner Fri May 14 16:44:39 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA09777; Fri, 14 May 93 16:44:39 GMT Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA09769; Fri, 14 May 93 09:44:34 PDT Message-Id: <9305141644.AA09769@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: roussi@erim.org (Chris Roussi) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Majordomo digest question In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 14 May 93 11:15:20 EDT Date: Fri, 14 May 93 09:44:33 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk # # Brent, # # I set up your digest stuff from an example included in your distribution, # and nearly everything seems to work fine (the incoming messages go to # a holding area until enough have accumulated, and the digest gets created # and sent out), except that when I use the RMAIL feature of GNUS emacs to # undigestify the mail (using the command "M-x undigestify-rmail-message"), # I get the response "Message is not a digest". It *looks* like a digest, # but emacs doesn't recognize it, although it does undigestify things that # I get from, say, the Space Digest maintainer , # abd the digests that I get from SunFlash (flash@sunvice.East.Sun.COM). # When you get a chance, could you think about what might be happening here? # # Thanks. I'm pretty sure I know what's happening; somebody worked this out before. I think emacs isn't looking back far enough from the end of the message for the "End of ... Digest" marker; it's getting confused by the "trailer" information that the digest creates. I've cc'd this message to the List-Managers mailing list. Does anybody on List-Managers know what the fix to gnumacs RMAIL is, to work around this problem? -Brent -- 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 May 18 03:34:19 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA23447; Tue, 18 May 93 03:34:19 GMT Received: from antares.mcs.anl.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA23440; Mon, 17 May 93 20:34:09 PDT Received: from skeeve.mcs.anl.gov by antares.mcs.anl.gov with SMTP id AA26979 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 17 May 1993 22:35:12 -0500 From: Gene Rackow Received: by skeeve.mcs.anl.gov (4.1/GeneV4) id AA03628; Mon, 17 May 93 22:35:10 CDT Date: Mon, 17 May 93 22:35:10 CDT Message-Id: <9305180335.AA03628@skeeve.mcs.anl.gov> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: lists and problem hosts/sites Cc: rackow@mcs.anl.gov Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I run a several mailing lists and have come across a common problem in several of them and I wonder if others see the same thing and how they deal with it. This is longer than intended, but I'd like to get some info so please be kind. First the question then details below... Do some list maintainers NOT allow people to subscribe to their lists because of where they are getting their email service? Basicly have people gotten fed up with certain sites that they will just refuse to add people from that site to their list because they have a pattern of failure shortly after subscription. ------- There is a site that puts message restrictions on it's users so that after they have X messages in their inbox, it starts bouncing the messages back to the bounce address in the header. For many things this should not be a problem, but if you have an active list, or a user that subscribes to just about everything he can get his hands on as many new users do, then it's bounce city. I am not sure that the user even gets notification that this he has exceeded his quota or by how much. It can also be a problem if the user goes on vacation or travel or ... for a few days. I have found a pattern for this site that about a month, or less, after the user subscribes to the list there gets to be a rather high number of bounce messages of the quota exceeded variety. Then I drop said user and rarely do they re-subscribe only to be dropped again after the next flurry where they disappear. After contacting their support group, they tell me that they have a 100 message limit for their users and no way of increasing that, even if the user is willing to pay more to get it. Others problems include uucp sites that go through sites that send status messages back if the uucp site hasn't been contactable in YY hours, then YY+, YY++, ... I am at the point that I may just go about modifying the subscription process to check for a "bad-site" list, and if there is a host name match send a kind rejection letter telling them to get service from somewhere else. I don't want to be the only person that is doing this so I am checking to see if any others have done such a thing and/or what other solutions may be worked out. Having an exploder at the remote site is a possibility for some, but how to tell people there is an exploder at their local site without lots on manual checking... --Gene PS: The biggest offender for this problem is people at compuserve.com. They have a 100 message limit. From List-Managers-Owner Tue May 18 18:43:48 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA25684; Tue, 18 May 93 18:43:48 GMT Received: from cheviot.ncl.ac.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA25673; Tue, 18 May 93 11:43:32 PDT Received: from pow (pow.ncl.ac.uk) by cheviot.ncl.ac.uk id (5.65cVUW/NCL-CMA.1.35 for ) with SMTP; Tue, 18 May 1993 19:44:10 +0100 From: John Martin Message-Id: Subject: Pegasus X-Pmrqc header To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers) Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 19:44:09 +0100 (BST) Cc: nisp-team@mailbase.ac.uk (Nisp Team) Reply-To: mailbase-helpline@mailbase.ac.uk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3112 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, Sorry for the long post but I think that this is important. You guys may be interested in this. I would appreciate comments as well. I have recently had a problem, (now resolved), which arose from the use of a combination of the Pegasus X-Pmrqc header (to request confirmation that someone has read a message) and a Reply-To: field which contained the address of a list. Mailbase has a list type called 'reply-to-list'. This means that a message sent to this type of list will have a Reply-To: field containing the name of the list added if, (and only if), one does not exist in the incoming message. The use is for small, busy 'committee' type lists. Pegasus has a feature which allows a user to request confirmation of a message being read by another Pegasus user. It does this by adding a header 'X-Pmrqc: 1' to the outgoing message. When the receiving Pegasus mailer sees this, it mails a confirmation message back telling the original sender that their message has been read. If there is a Reply-To field, it will send to that, otherwise it will use the From field. You can probably guess the rest but... What happened was this. A person would mail to a Mailbase 'reply-to-list' list using Pegasus, and with the Pegasus feature 'Read Confirmation' switched on. Mailbase would distribute the message as normal. The person would receive the message back into their mailbox and use Pegasus to read it. Pegasus would see the 'X-Pmrqc: 1' header and send a read confirmation message to the contents of the Reply-To field... which contained the name of the list... so the confirmation went out to the list... (and so on). This was allowed to happen because I don't remove 'X-' headers - do you do this? Do you think I should? (I don't!) I have agreed to remove the 'X-Pmrqc' header as it goes through in the meantime. I have also agreed to add the following header to messages distributed (which some of you already add I think): X-Listserver: Your list server. I have been in contact with David Harris at Pegasus about this and he is as keen as I am to find a solution. We agreed that the 'X-Pmrqc' header should contain the address to which the confirmation would be sent. (We disagreed about whether Mailbase should remove 'X-' headers :-) ) I also agreed to contact this list to try to achieve a consenus for identifying mail which has come from a mailing list. David will try to make provision for this in future versions of Pegasus if we can agree... (Dictator hat on) I think it would be nice if we all agreed on the format of a header to be added by our various list servers - would this be acceptable to the group? I prefer the 'X-Listserver:' form but I'm open to suggestions. Comments? flames? Cheers, John -- AKA: postmaster@mailbase.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------- John Martin Computing Laboratory 091 222 8087 University of Newcastle upon Tyne John.Martin@newcastle.ac.uk Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From List-Managers-Owner Tue May 18 19:09:14 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA25859; Tue, 18 May 93 19:09:14 GMT Received: from livbird.liv.ac.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA25844; Tue, 18 May 93 12:09:00 PDT Received: from localhost.liv.ac.uk by liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk with Local-SMTP (PP) id <29000-0@liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk>; Tue, 18 May 1993 20:00:24 +0100 To: mailbase-helpline@mailbase.ac.uk Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Pegasus X-Pmrqc header In-Reply-To: The Message of "Tue, 18 May 93 19:44:09 BST." Date: Tue, 18 May 93 20:00:19 BST Message-Id: <28998.737751619@livbird.liv.ac.uk> From: Alan Thew Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 18 May 1993 19:44:09 +0100 (BST) John Martin wrote: [ details of problem removed - it makes me very tempted to have all these hdrs removed but that's my opinion ] > >This was allowed to happen because I don't remove 'X-' headers - do you >do this? Do you think I should? (I don't!) > >I have agreed to remove the 'X-Pmrqc' header as it goes through in the >meantime. > >I have also agreed to add the following header to messages distributed >(which some of you already add I think): > >X-Listserver: Your list server. Suggest X-Listmanager: blah blah (comes with minimal BITNET flames :-)) > >I have been in contact with David Harris at Pegasus about this and he >is as keen as I am to find a solution. We agreed that the 'X-Pmrqc' >header should contain the address to which the confirmation would be >sent. (We disagreed about whether Mailbase should remove 'X-' headers >:-) ) > >I also agreed to contact this list to try to achieve a consenus for >identifying mail which has come from a mailing list. David will try >to make provision for this in future versions of Pegasus if we can >agree... > >(Dictator hat on) > >I think it would be nice if we all agreed on the format of a header to >be added by our various list servers - would this be acceptable to the >group? I prefer the 'X-Listserver:' form but I'm open to suggestions. > >Comments? flames? > There's always the Precedence: bulk but this is no guarentee. IMO the X-Listmanager is free of all current name clashes. my $0.0.2 worth.... -- Alan Thew alan.thew@livbird.liv.ac.uk ...!uknet!livbird!alan.thew +44 51 794 3735 From List-Managers-Owner Tue May 18 23:31:21 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA26952; Tue, 18 May 93 23:31:21 GMT Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA26878; Tue, 18 May 93 16:23:21 PDT Message-Id: <9305182323.AA26878@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: Gene Rackow Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: lists and problem hosts/sites In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 17 May 93 22:35:10 CDT Date: Tue, 18 May 93 16:23:20 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk # Do some list maintainers NOT allow people to subscribe to their lists # because of where they are getting their email service? Basicly have people # gotten fed up with certain sites that they will just refuse to add people from # that site to their list because they have a pattern of failure shortly after # subscription. I haven't had to make any kind of formal mechanism for that yet. I _do_ get real annoyed when I bounce somebody because of returned mail, they resubscribe, and the response to their resubscription bounces... # PS: The biggest offender for this problem is people at compuserve.com. # They have a 100 message limit. I have exactly one CompuServe subscriber and one CompuServe staff member (who uses what appears to be a normal UNIX email address on another machine in the CompuServe.COM domain) among all the dozens of lists and several thousand subscribers that I run. They haven't been a big problem for me. On the other hand (as some of you have unfortunately experienced first-hand), I'm _very_ agressive about bouncing people with mail problems from my lists. Basicly, if I get bounced email for your address, you're out of there and onto the "Bounces" list that I've described here before, banished until you get your problem solved and resubscribe yourself. -Brent -- Brent Chapman Great Circle Associates Brent@GreatCircle.COM 1057 West Dana Street +1 415 962 0841 Mountain View, CA 94041 From List-Managers-Owner Wed May 19 04:09:34 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA28396; Wed, 19 May 93 04:09:34 GMT Received: from netcom3.netcom.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA28389; Tue, 18 May 93 21:09:25 PDT Received: by netcom3.netcom.com (5.65/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id AA27160; Tue, 18 May 93 21:10:48 -0700 From: phoffman@netcom.com (Paul E. Hoffman) Message-Id: <9305190410.AA27160@netcom3.netcom.com> Subject: Are .BITNET addresses poison? To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 18 May 93 21:10:47 PDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Boy, do ***I*** have 100 people pissed at me. I run a mailing list about ayurveda (health from India). Today, I added about 6 new people with .BITNET addresses. The next few letters that went to the mailing list caused over 200 "error" messages like that shown below. I put "error" in quotes because it doesn't look like it is even an error. Everyone on the list got the damn 200 messages. I took off all the .BITNET addresses, sent out an apology letter, and it looks OK for now. Should I never allow .BITNET addresses on my list? Is nettlerash sick? Any guesses? >>Paul Hoffman ---------------- From ayurveda Tue May 18 20:39:37 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mail.netcom.com (5.65/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id AA02964; Tue, 18 May 93 20:12:34 -0700 Received: from nettlerash.Berkeley.EDU by mail.netcom.com (5.65/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id AA02744; Tue, 18 May 93 20:11:42 -0700 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nettlerash.berkeley.edu (5.67.1/1.34.6) id AA29518; Tue, 18 May 93 20:10:32 -0700 Message-Id: <9305190310.AA29518@nettlerash.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3856; Tue, 18 May 93 20:11:36 PDT Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 7801; Tue, 18 May 93 20:11:34 PDT Date: Tue, 18 May 93 20:11:34 PDT From: Network Mailer To: @cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:ayurveda@netcom.com Subject: mail delivery error Sender: ayurveda@netcom.com Errors-To: ayurveda-errors@netcom.com Status: OR Batch SMTP transaction log follows: 220 cmsa.Berkeley.EDU Columbia MAILER R2.08 R208004 BSMTP service ready. 050 HELO UCBCMSA 250 cmsa.Berkeley.EDU Hello UCBCMSA 050 MAIL FROM:<@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:ayurveda@netcom.com> 250 <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:ayurveda@netcom.com>... sender OK. 050 RCPT TO: 250 ... recipient OK. 050 RCPT TO: 250 ... recipient OK. 050 RCPT TO: 250 ... recipient OK. 050 RCPT TO: 250 ... recipient OK. 050 RCPT TO: 550 Mailbox not found. 050 RCPT TO: 250 ... recipient OK. 050 RCPT TO: 250 ... recipient OK. 050 RCPT TO: 250 ... recipient OK. 050 DATA 354 Start mail input. End with . 050 QUIT 221 cmsa.Berkeley.EDU Columbia MAILER BSMTP service done. This is then repeated about ten times in ***each*** message. From List-Managers-Owner Wed May 19 05:03:30 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA28483; Wed, 19 May 93 05:03:30 GMT Received: from grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA28476; Tue, 18 May 93 22:03:24 PDT Received: by grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr (5.67a8/IDA-1.5f) via Rocad id AA25402; Wed, 19 May 1993 07:04:00 +0200 Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 07:04:00 +0200 From: Christophe Wolfhugel Message-Id: <199305190504.AA25402@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr> Subject: Re: Pegasus X-Pmrqc header To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > X-Listserver: Your list server. > X-Listmanager: Blah. I am somewhat lazy and like Scott Ophof's abbreviation. Why not X-MLM: your favorite here. Chris From List-Managers-Owner Wed May 19 06:14:10 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA29023; Wed, 19 May 93 06:14:10 GMT Received: from netcom3.netcom.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA29016; Tue, 18 May 93 23:14:03 PDT Received: by netcom3.netcom.com (5.65/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id AA07043; Tue, 18 May 93 23:15:27 -0700 From: phoffman@netcom.com (Paul E. Hoffman) Message-Id: <9305190615.AA07043@netcom3.netcom.com> Subject: It came back, but now has (hopefully) died To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Maintainers list) Date: Tue, 18 May 93 23:15:26 PDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I sent the previous message a bit too soon. Even after removing all the .BITNET addresses, the error messages returned. So I deleted all of the names in the mailing-list file. And the error messages returned. And then stopped (for now, I'm afraid). I haven't gotten any in 100 minutes, so maybe the world is safe again. Thanks to the folks who contacted me from my previous posting. I got through to the mail admin at cmsa.berkeley.edu, and she said that it looks like it is their fault. She'll attack it in the morning. She said that .BITNET addresses are always a problem. This bodes poorly for my first foray into mail-list-leadership. I'll decide tomorrow what to do about the list. I have 100 people, most of them rank novices, who have their mailboxes hosed by the list. I doubt I can regain any credibility for the list. >>Paul Hoffman From List-Managers-Owner Wed May 19 03:02:04 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA29587; Wed, 19 May 93 09:28:00 GMT Received: from cheviot.ncl.ac.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA29580; Wed, 19 May 93 02:27:28 PDT Received: from pow (pow.ncl.ac.uk) by cheviot.ncl.ac.uk id (5.65cVUW/NCL-CMA.1.35 for ) with SMTP; Wed, 19 May 1993 10:28:31 +0100 From: John Martin Message-Id: Subject: Re: Pegasus X-Pmrqc header To: Christophe.Wolfhugel@grasp.insa-lyon.fr (Christophe Wolfhugel) Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 10:28:29 +0100 (BST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199305190504.AA25402@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr> from "Christophe Wolfhugel" at May 19, 93 07:04:00 am Reply-To: mailbase-helpline@mailbase.ac.uk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 680 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Re: > > > X-Listserver: Your list server. > > X-Listmanager: Blah. > > I am somewhat lazy and like Scott Ophof's abbreviation. > > Why not > > X-MLM: your favorite here. > This falls into the same category as 'X-Pmrqc' - how is someone supposed to know what the abbreviation 'MLM' means? Cheers, John -- AKA: postmaster@mailbase.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------- John Martin Computing Laboratory 091 222 8087 University of Newcastle upon Tyne John.Martin@newcastle.ac.uk Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From List-Managers-Owner Wed May 19 12:07:26 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA29993; Wed, 19 May 93 12:07:26 GMT Received: from sally.informatik.rwth-aachen.de by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA29962; Wed, 19 May 93 05:00:44 PDT Received: from ikki (ikki.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE) by sally.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (4.1/sally-1) id AA17498; Wed, 19 May 93 13:57:11 +0200 Received: by ikki (4.1/POOL.3) id AA28336; Wed, 19 May 93 13:56:52 +0200 Message-Id: <9305191156.AA28336@ikki> From: berg@pool.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE (Stephen R. van den Berg) Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 13:56:49 +0200 In-Reply-To: John Martin's message as of 1993 May 18 Tue 19:44. To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: X-Listserver (Re: Pegasus X-Pmrqc header) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >X-Listserver: Your list server. >I also agreed to contact this list to try to achieve a consenus for >identifying mail which has come from a mailing list. David will try >to make provision for this in future versions of Pegasus if we can >agree... >(Dictator hat on) >I think it would be nice if we all agreed on the format of a header to >be added by our various list servers - would this be acceptable to the >group? I prefer the 'X-Listserver:' form but I'm open to suggestions. I already use a different field. It was suggested previously (about four months ago). To every outgoing mail I add: X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/196 Precedence: list The format for the X-Mailing-List field would be: archive_retrieval_key The "Predence: list" field should be added by all mailinglist generated mail. It solves problems with the configuration of old sendmails (which don't send bounces on "Precedence: bulk"). And it is supported by Sendmail-6.XX and BSD4.4-vacation. -- Sincerely, berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless). berg@physik.tu-muenchen.de "Good moaning!" From List-Managers-Owner Wed May 19 12:35:16 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA00218; Wed, 19 May 93 12:35:16 GMT Received: from relay1.UU.NET by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA00211; Wed, 19 May 93 05:35:10 PDT Received: from nyx.cs.du.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA04685; Wed, 19 May 93 08:36:28 -0400 Received: by nyx.cs.du.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA24115; Wed, 19 May 93 06:36:43 MDT From: mlevin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshall Levin) Message-Id: <9305191236.AA24115@nyx.cs.du.edu> Subject: Your BITNET problem To: phoffman@netcom.com Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 06:36:42 -0600 (MDT) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-Disclaimer: (C) 1993 by Marshall Levin. All rights reserved. No portion of this message may be used by any means without written permission of the author. X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 336 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Why not send your bitnet mail through another, more properly functioning gateway (cunyvm.cuny.edu, mitvma.mit.edu, vaxf.colorado.edu, take your pick)? You might have to manually change the bitnet subscriber addresses from name@node.bitnet to name%node.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu so that they do not go through your site's default gateway. From List-Managers-Owner Wed May 19 14:27:22 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA00488; Wed, 19 May 93 14:27:22 GMT Received: from cs.bu.edu (CS-MAIL.BU.EDU) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA00481; Wed, 19 May 93 07:27:15 PDT Received: from CSD.BU.EDU by cs.bu.edu (5.61+++/Spike-2.1) id AA08965; Wed, 19 May 93 10:28:18 -0400 From: tasos@cs.bu.edu (Anastasios Kotsikonas) Received: from CS.BU.EDU by csd.bu.edu (5.61+++/Spike-2.1) id AA06005; Wed, 19 May 93 10:28:17 -0400 Received: by cs (4.1/Spike-2.1) id AA08118; Wed, 19 May 93 10:28:13 EDT Date: Wed, 19 May 93 10:28:13 EDT Message-Id: <9305191428.AA08118@cs> To: Christophe.Wolfhugel@grasp.insa-lyon.fr, mailbase-helpline@mailbase.ac.uk Subject: Re: Pegasus X-Pmrqc header Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > > > > X-Listserver: Your list server. > > > X-Listmanager: Blah. > > > > I am somewhat lazy and like Scott Ophof's abbreviation. > > > > Why not > > > > X-MLM: your favorite here. > > > This falls into the same category as 'X-Pmrqc' - how is someone supposed > to know what the abbreviation 'MLM' means? Regardless of what this line may be, I have found out it to be very useful. A few people are writing a "global" interface to as many list management systems as possible so that their users do not have to remember what the syntax is for subscription (for example) for each of those systems. When these users submit such a request, the system will first issue "help", then look for such header lines and possibly rewrite the request to match the syntax requirements if a certain automated list management system is recognized. It will then record that particular reply address and classify it as one of the known list management systems, so that next time it will not issue "help" first. Version numbers also help in functions like searching archives, or obtaining files from archives. Tasos From List-Managers-Owner Wed May 19 17:28:58 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA00835; Wed, 19 May 93 17:28:58 GMT Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA00827; Wed, 19 May 93 10:28:28 PDT Message-Id: <9305191728.AA00827@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: phoffman@netcom.com (Paul E. Hoffman) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Maintainers list) Subject: Re: It came back, but now has (hopefully) died In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 18 May 93 23:15:26 PDT Date: Wed, 19 May 93 10:28:26 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk # This bodes poorly for my first foray into mail-list-leadership. I'll # decide tomorrow what to do about the list. I have 100 people, most of them # rank novices, who have their mailboxes hosed by the list. I doubt I can # regain any credibility for the list. I've got BITNET addresses on most of the lists I manage (except for Majordomo-Users and Majordomo-Announce; I wonder why? :-), and I've never had a problem like the one you describe. Are you sure the "owner" aliases and such are set up properly on your end (like, they weren't accidentally set up to send error messages to the whole list?)? And that the "Sender:" field is getting added properly to messages going to your list? -Brent -- Brent Chapman Great Circle Associates Brent@GreatCircle.COM 1057 West Dana Street +1 415 962 0841 Mountain View, CA 94041 From List-Managers-Owner Mon May 24 19:40:28 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA21564; Mon, 24 May 93 19:40:28 GMT Received: from heffalump.mmwb.ucsf.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA21526; Mon, 24 May 93 12:39:12 PDT Received: by heffalump.mmwb.ucsf.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA19312; Mon, 24 May 1993 12:39:49 -0700 Message-Id: <9305241939.AA19312@heffalump.mmwb.ucsf.edu> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: reply to sender problem Date: Mon, 24 May 93 12:39:48 -0700 From: troyer@heffalump.mmwb.ucsf.edu X-Mts: smtp Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi -- I keep getting replies to my mailing list with To: fields like: To: Atlantis-Owner (Rich Skrenta) It seems to be mixing information from both the Sender: and the From: fields of the original letters. The Atlantis-Owner comes from the Sender: field, and (Rich Skrenta) was the real name from the original From: field. (The original header of the letter that was replied to is listed below.) (The list name is Atlantis. Atlantis-Owner is me, which is not what the Reply-er wanted. I am using Brent's resend script to run the list) Now these are probably pathological mailers, but is there anything I can do about this? Am I doing everything right? thanks john troyer@cgl.ucsf.edu Here is the header of the original letter: Return-Path: Atlantis-Owner Subject: Re: What happened? To: hankins@cs.swarthmore.edu (Luke Hankins) Date: Mon, 24 May 93 11:59:15 EDT From: Rich Skrenta Cc: fkschmid@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de, atlantis In-Reply-To: <199305241525.LAA08942@sage.cs.swarthmore.edu>; from "Luke Hankins" at May 24, 93 11:25 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL16] Received: from usl by usl.com; Mon, 24 May 1993 11:59 EDT Content-Type: text Content-Length: 199 Sender: Atlantis-Owner Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: Atlantis Players And here is an example of the way one poor guy gets it (a different letter) Received: 93.05.19 14:18 Sent: 93.05.19 03:03 From: Greg Lindahl To: Atlantis@heffalump.mmwb.ucsf.edu Subject: Oleg's Combat Summary, June Year 1 Reply-To: PTUNIX:Atlantis-Owner@heffalump.mmwb.ucsf.edu X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.3 5/22/91) Sender: Atlantis-Owner@heffalump.mmwb.ucsf.edu Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: Atlantis Players From List-Managers-Owner Mon May 24 21:01:10 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA21905; Mon, 24 May 93 21:01:10 GMT Received: from netcom2.netcom.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA21887; Mon, 24 May 93 14:00:58 PDT Received: by netcom2.netcom.com (5.65/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id AA10082; Mon, 24 May 93 14:02:47 -0700 Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 14:00:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Arthur R. McGee" Subject: VMS Mailing List Software? To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9305242053.AA21846@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I hope I'm not upsetting anyone, but are there any mailing list programs available for VMS systems that I could obtain via the net? I've heard of several that are UNIX based, but the site where I can host a list is a VMS system. Thanks in advance. Art "Rambo" McGee Internet: [amcgee@netcom.com] [72377.1351@compuserve.com] BDPA BAC: [1-707-552-3314] to [Arthur McGee] Data Bits Online: [1-213-295-6094] to [Arthur McGee] Compuserve: [72377,1351] Voice: [1-310-320-BYTE] "The revolution will not be televised, but the proceedings will be available online." ;-> From List-Managers-Owner Wed May 26 19:14:18 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA29687; Wed, 26 May 93 19:14:18 GMT Received: from proteus.arc.nasa.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA29679; Wed, 26 May 93 12:13:57 PDT Received: Wed, 26 May 93 12:15:05 PDT from localhost.arc.nasa.gov by proteus.arc.nasa.gov (4.1/1.2) Message-Id: <9305261915.AA14620@proteus.arc.nasa.gov> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Marc.Rinfret@eng.canadair.ca suggested that I forward this Date: Wed, 26 May 93 12:15:05 PDT From: rsmith@proteus.arc.nasa.gov Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk To your mailing list. ------- Forwarded Message Follows: Path: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!rsmith Newsgroups: de.admin.mail, bit.listserv.mail, comp.mail.elm, comp.mail.mush, comp.mail.mime,comp.window s.x Distribution: world Followup-To: From: rsmith@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Roger Smith RCS) Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035 Subject: Mailing list/archive/digest Manager Packages Keywords: Hello fellow Internet Users. I am in the process of compiling a comprehensive list of all known packages that do mailing list management, mailing archive management, and mailing digest management. This is a precursor to a possible RFC cycle to establish some conventions in how lists/digests/archives are managed. If you know of such a package, or of any other simular effort, please send me the package/effort name, Author, and most importantly, the Authors email address. Please respond directly to me via email as I do not subscribe to any of the addressed newsgroups. I will definately post a follow-up in a week or two. Thanks. ------- End of Forwarded Message From List-Managers-Owner Wed May 26 21:41:03 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA00341; Wed, 26 May 93 21:41:03 GMT Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA00329; Wed, 26 May 93 14:40:38 PDT Message-Id: <9305262140.AA00329@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: troyer@heffalump.mmwb.ucsf.edu Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: reply to sender problem In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 24 May 93 12:39:48 -0700 Date: Wed, 26 May 93 14:40:37 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk # # Hi -- # # I keep getting replies to my mailing list with To: fields like: # # To: Atlantis-Owner (Rich Skrenta) # # It seems to be mixing information from both the Sender: and the From: # fields of the original letters. The Atlantis-Owner comes from the Sender: # field, and (Rich Skrenta) was the real name from the original From: field. # (The original header of the letter that was replied to is listed below.) # # (The list name is Atlantis. Atlantis-Owner is me, which is not what the # Reply-er wanted. I am using Brent's resend script to run the list) # # Now these are probably pathological mailers, but is there anything # I can do about this? Am I doing everything right? As far as I can tell, your headers are correct. Somebody else's broken mailer is replying to the "Sender:" field rather than the "Reply-To:" or "From:" field. You could add code to "resend" to add a "Reply-To:" header to outgoing messages. Those broken mailers might prefer that to "Sender:", but who knows. If you want replies to come back to the list, make "Reply-To:" the mailing list (non "-owner") address; if you want them to come back to the originator of the message, make it the same as the "From:" line. Regardless, you should probably leave existing "Reply-To:" fields alone, and only add ones to messages that don't already have one. -Brent -- Brent Chapman Great Circle Associates Brent@GreatCircle.COM 1057 West Dana Street +1 415 962 0841 Mountain View, CA 94041 From List-Managers-Owner Wed May 26 22:38:50 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA00469; Wed, 26 May 93 22:38:50 GMT Received: from tux.fa.asu.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA00462; Wed, 26 May 93 15:38:21 PDT Received: from tux.FA.ASU.EDU by tux.fa.asu.edu (5.64/A/UX-3.00) id AA00383; Wed, 26 May 93 15:39:04 MST Message-Id: <9305262239.AA00383@tux.fa.asu.edu> X-Sender: ben@127.0.0.1 Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 15:39:18 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Ben.Goren@asu.edu Subject: Re: Marc.Rinfret@eng.canadair.ca suggested that I forward this Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Hello fellow Internet Users. > >I am in the process of compiling a comprehensive list of all known >packages that do mailing list management, mailing archive >management, and mailing digest management. This is a precursor to a >possible RFC cycle to establish some conventions in how >lists/digests/archives are managed. If you know of such a package, >or of any other simular effort, please send me the package/effort >name, Author, and most importantly, the Authors email address. >Please respond directly to me via email as I do not subscribe to any >of the addressed newsgroups. I will definately post a follow-up in >a week or two. Is anybody else out there concerned about the possibility of somebody who doesn't read mailing lists and newsgroups devoted to mailing lists writing RFCs about mailing lists? >Thanks. ---- Ben Goren Arizona State University School of Music Internet: Ben.Goren@asu.edu BITNet: BenGoren AT ASU From List-Managers-Owner Thu May 27 05:57:41 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA01530; Thu, 27 May 93 05:57:41 GMT Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA01523; Wed, 26 May 93 22:57:32 PDT Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN) id AA17771; Thu, 27 May 93 01:58:05 EDT Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 22:52:37 -0400 From: "F. Scott Ophof" Subject: Re: Marc.Rinfret@eng.canadair.ca suggested that I forward this Message-Id: <930526.225237-0400@MReXX-0.17> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9305262239.AA00383@tux.fa.asu.edu> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 26 May 1993 15:39:18 -0700 Ben.Goren@asu.edu said: >>Hello fellow Internet Users. >> >>I am in the process of compiling a comprehensive list of all known >>packages that do mailing list management, mailing archive >>management, and mailing digest management. This is a precursor to a >>possible RFC cycle to establish some conventions in how >>lists/digests/archives are managed. If you know of such a package, >>or of any other simular effort, please send me the package/effort >>name, Author, and most importantly, the Authors email address. >>Please respond directly to me via email as I do not subscribe to any >>of the addressed newsgroups. I will definately post a follow-up in >>a week or two. >Is anybody else out there concerned about the possibility of somebody who >doesn't read mailing lists and newsgroups devoted to mailing lists writing >RFCs about mailing lists? Well, somebody who doesn't read mailing lists and newsgroups devoted to mailing lists writing RFCs about mailing lists (oof! take a deep breath..) might check the file "rfc.index" once in a while, or people writing such RFCs might post to lists/groups that are devoted to mailing lists (LSTSRV-L, CRENLIST, LISTCREN, LISTEARN, ListNix, List-Managers, etc.), or set up a list or group devoted to mailing lists writing RFCs about mailing lists (and advertise it on for example MAIL-L. (grin) Would that help? Regards. $$\ From List-Managers-Owner Thu May 27 02:44:36 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA02403; Thu, 27 May 93 09:28:20 GMT Received: from nada.kth.se (mail.nada.kth.se) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA02396; Thu, 27 May 93 02:28:01 PDT Received: from cyklop.nada.kth.se by mail.nada.kth.se (5.61-bind 1.4+ida/nada-mx-1.0) id AA12538; Thu, 27 May 93 11:29:24 +0200 Message-Id: <9305270929.AA12538@nada.kth.se> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Cc: psv@nada.kth.se Subject: Re: X-Listserver (Re: Pegasus X-Pmrqc header) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 May 1993 13:56:49 +0200." <9305191156.AA28336@ikki> Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 11:29:22 +0200 From: Peter Svanberg Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Quoting John Martin: > >X-Listserver: Your list server. > >I also agreed to contact this list to try to achieve a consenus for >identifying mail which has come from a mailing list. David will try >to make provision for this in future versions of Pegasus if we can >agree... > >(Dictator hat on) > >I think it would be nice if we all agreed on the format of a header to >be added by our various list servers - would this be acceptable to the >group? I prefer the 'X-Listserver:' form but I'm open to suggestions. Quoting: Stephen R. van den Berg > I already use a different field. It was suggested previously (about > four months ago). > > To every outgoing mail I add: > > X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/196 > Precedence: list > > The format for the X-Mailing-List field would be: > > archive_retrieval_key > > The "Predence: list" field should be added by all mailinglist generated > mail. It solves problems with the configuration of old sendmails > (which don't send bounces on "Precedence: bulk"). And it is supported > by Sendmail-6.XX and BSD4.4-vacation. 1) I haven't seen any definition of the purpose of the field we are trying to agree upon. If it is to identify that "This is a message sent out to this mailing list", then (X-)Mailing-List is natural. If the purpose is to identify which mailing list software was used to distribute the message, then X-Listmanager is natural. 2) I think an "archive_retrieval_key" is too much, a "sequence_number" is enough. Amongst others, the key can become out of date. (In the above example: For how long is this list regarded as "latest"?) Then it's more important to use the space to inform the user about the name of the list. I suggested in nov -92 (and still do): --- 7) Add a field on this form: X-Mailing-List: [list name/description]*[sequence number] <[list address]> Example: X-Mailing-List: Mailing list admin*207 This is something we would like to promote. It is useful for (at least) three purposes: a) It identifies the message as a mailing list ditto and makes it easy for an incoming-mail-sorter. b) It serves as a loop detector - any incoming message containing this field with the correct list address can be dumped. c) The sequence number faciliates for a subscriber to find out if he missed some message on the list. Also, it is easier for anyone to refer to a number than to a long message-id. --- 3) If we can come to an agreement on this field, maybe we should try to officially register it, as stated in RFC 822? I have been told that nobody have done this before so it's about time... (If we succeed we could skip the "X-" prefix!) --- Peter Svanberg, NADA, KTH Email: psv@nada.kth.se Dept of Num An & CS, Royal Inst of Tech Phone: +46 8 790 71 40 S-100 44 Stockholm, SWEDEN Fax: +46 8 790 09 30 From List-Managers-Owner Thu May 27 12:23:32 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA02627; Thu, 27 May 93 12:23:32 GMT Received: from mimsy.cs.UMD.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA02620; Thu, 27 May 93 05:23:25 PDT Received: by mimsy.cs.UMD.EDU (5.61/UMIACS-0.9/04-05-88) id AA12825; Thu, 27 May 93 08:24:28 -0400 Received: by bahainvs (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.1) id AA19516; Thu, 27 May 93 08:09:50 EDT Date: Thu, 27 May 93 08:09:50 EDT From: johnw@bahainvs.org (John Wiegley) Message-Id: <9305271209.AA19516@bahainvs> Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.63) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: X-Listserver (Re: Pegasus X-Pmrqc header) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Re: The X-Listserver stuff... It seems to me that the best thing would be a sequence of headers which are informative, and which don't confuse the recipient. "X-Listserver" and "X-Mailing-List" seem to connote two different things (one being the "controller", and the other being the "controlled"). As I see it, a header would have: [In my case...] X-Listserver: "TLSP Listserv 1.0" Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA02682; Thu, 27 May 93 12:57:32 GMT Received: from note2.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA02675; Thu, 27 May 93 05:57:22 PDT Received: from z.nsf.gov by Note2.nsf.gov id aa03841; 27 May 93 8:36 EDT Received: by z.nsf.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03972; Thu, 27 May 93 08:38:55 EDT Message-Id: <9305271238.AA03972@z.nsf.gov> From: "Michael H. Morse" Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 08:38:54 EDT In-Reply-To: Ben.Goren@asu.edu "Re: Marc.Rinfret@eng.canadair.ca suggested that I forward this" (May 26, 3:39pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: Ben.Goren@asu.edu, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Marc.Rinfret@eng.canadair.ca suggested that I forward this Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is anybody else out there concerned about the possibility of somebody who > doesn't read mailing lists and newsgroups devoted to mailing lists writing > RFCs about mailing lists? Not me. So many good, knowledgable, and sincere people have tried to do this and failed I doubt that anyone can get an RFC through on this subject. Who knows, maybe a fresh new perspective will prevail. Any one who wants to tackle it has my blessing, and I suggest we ignore the lack of pedigree. --Mike From List-Managers-Owner Thu May 27 13:31:56 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA02735; Thu, 27 May 93 13:31:56 GMT Received: from deepthought.cs.utexas.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA02728; Thu, 27 May 93 06:31:48 PDT Received: from im4u.cs.utexas.edu by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29062; Thu, 27 May 93 08:33:03 -0500 Received: from chinaca by im4u.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.15/uucp) with UUCP id AA05187; Thu, 27 May 93 08:33:15 -0500 Received: originated by chinacat.unicom.com (3.1.28.1) id m0nyhRB-0002WtC; Thu, 27 May 93 07:52 CDT Message-Id: From: chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) Subject: Re: X-Listserver (Re: Pegasus X-Pmrqc header) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 07:52:00 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <9305270929.AA12538@nada.kth.se> from "Peter Svanberg" at May 27, 93 11:29:22 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22beta3] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1558 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Peter Svanberg writes: > X-Mailing-List: Mailing list admin*207 This fails to comprehend secondary exploders -- and that's a critical issue. How many times have people harassed you for not dropping them from your mailing list when they aren't even in the distribution? All email redistribution I perform, whether it be mailing lists I run, those I explode and redistribute, or just aliases I forward to a couple of people get pushed through a `resend' utility that tacks on something like: X-Redistributed-By: chinacat.unicom.com to the "list-managers" list The header to do what we want already exists in RFC-822, and it's called `Resent-Sender'. Unfortunately, my reading of RFC-822 tells me that it has been specified in such a way as to be unusable for this purpose. If you are going to specify a `Resent-Sender' you also need to have a `Recent-From'. Moreover, you are limited to just one `Resent-Sender' in the header, and cannot simply tack on additional ones as the message passes through subsequent exploders and gateways. Pity. I guess I can understand the second restriction. You might argue the Resent-Sender is the proper place to send bounces, and so it should indicate the last place it passed through. I don't see any reason for the first requirement, though. -- Chip Rosenthal 512-447-0577 | I'm going out where the lights don't shine so Unicom Systems Development | bright. When I get back you can treat me like | a Saturday night. -Jimmie Dale Gilmore From List-Managers-Owner Thu May 27 14:55:29 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA02941; Thu, 27 May 93 14:55:29 GMT Received: from yonge.csri.toronto.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA02931; Thu, 27 May 93 07:55:21 PDT Received: from alias by yonge.csri.toronto.edu with UUCP id <14405>; Thu, 27 May 1993 10:49:22 -0400 Received: from dino.alias.com by barney.alias.com with SMTP id AA11386 (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2 for Ben.Goren@asu.edu); Thu, 27 May 93 10:40:32 -0400 Received: by dino.alias.com id AA17564 (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2 for list-managers@greatcircle.com); Thu, 27 May 93 10:40:31 -0400 From: chk@alias.com (C. Harald Koch) Message-Id: <9305271440.AA17564@dino.alias.com> Subject: Re: Marc.Rinfret@eng.canadair.ca suggested that I forward this To: Ben.Goren@asu.edu Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 11:40:29 -0400 Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9305262239.AA00383@tux.fa.asu.edu> from "Ben.Goren@asu.edu" at May 26, 93 06:39:18 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL8] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 708 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is anybody else out there concerned about the possibility of somebody who > doesn't read mailing lists and newsgroups devoted to mailing lists writing > RFCs about mailing lists? I am simply amused by the fact that there are more people writing RFCs about mailling list standards than there are writing (or maintaining) mailling list processors. Anarchy is so much fun at times! -- C. Harald Koch, Network Manager | "Cable is not a luxury, since many areas have Alias Research Inc. Toronto, ON | poor TV reception". - Mayor, Tucson AZ, 1989 chk@alias.com | [ apparently, good TV reception is a basic chk@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca | necessity -- at least in Tucson -kl ] From List-Managers-Owner Thu May 27 17:57:29 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA03785; Thu, 27 May 93 17:57:29 GMT Received: from mimsy.cs.UMD.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA03777; Thu, 27 May 93 10:57:21 PDT Received: by mimsy.cs.UMD.EDU (5.61/UMIACS-0.9/04-05-88) id AA27102; Thu, 27 May 93 13:58:37 -0400 Received: by bahainvs (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.1) id AA21287; Thu, 27 May 93 13:31:31 EDT Date: Thu, 27 May 93 13:31:31 EDT From: johnw@bahainvs.org (John Wiegley) Message-Id: <9305271731.AA21287@bahainvs> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Another listserver... Reply-To: johnw@bahainvs.org Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Well, inspired by Majordomo, and because there were features I wanted that I wasn't finding anywhere else in the way that I wanted them, I wrote my own listserver. It's taken about a month, and I just finished a few days ago. It emulates the functionality of Majordomo to a point, but then extends that command set to provide other features (like three modes of security, in addition to lists being either private or public [one mode deals with security regarding POSTING, while the other deals with security regarding SUBSCRIBING]. It also provides an archiving service, to allow users access to old messages, and has fairly useful local-side utilities. Also, if a user's account has been bouncing mail for a while, you can move their address into a "tempdown" file [this can be done via e-mail], and the system will automatically send them an "are you ok?" piece of mail every two or so weeks). The listserver was written in a script language that I wrote during the last 8 months. There's probably some "re-inventing of the wheel" going on here, but hey, it was fun. You'll never believe how much quicker you can program things in a language of your own design. I call it "TLSP listserv 1.0", because the script language is called TLSP (Tiny Little Script Parser). John From List-Managers-Owner Thu May 27 19:54:16 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA04205; Thu, 27 May 93 19:54:16 GMT Received: from mimsy.cs.UMD.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA04198; Thu, 27 May 93 12:53:55 PDT Received: by mimsy.cs.UMD.EDU (5.61/UMIACS-0.9/04-05-88) id AA02571; Thu, 27 May 93 15:55:21 -0400 Received: by bahainvs (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.1) id AA22586; Thu, 27 May 93 15:32:17 EDT Date: Thu, 27 May 93 15:32:17 EDT From: johnw@bahainvs.org (John Wiegley) Message-Id: <9305271932.AA22586@bahainvs> Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.63) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Another listserver... Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Since two people have already asked, I might as well say it here: Anyone can have the TLSP listserv 1.0 who wants it. It requires a BSD system. Since it wasn't really written with distribution in mind, the documentation is REALLY sparse. Whoever sets it up is going need a bit of ingenuity (and they can ask me questions if they want to). The package is now ready, and is about 177K in size. I can send it via UUencoded mail, we can work out FTP arrangements... John From List-Managers-Owner Fri May 28 09:49:50 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA06460; Fri, 28 May 93 09:49:50 GMT Received: from relay1.UU.NET by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA06453; Fri, 28 May 93 02:49:44 PDT Received: from spool.uu.net (via localhost) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA27390; Fri, 28 May 93 05:51:03 -0400 Received: from lhdsy1.UUCP by spool.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL (queueing-rmail) id 055023.22058; Fri, 28 May 1993 05:50:23 EDT Received: by SSWSMTP.ION.CHEVRON.COM (Soft-Switch Central V4L380P1); 28 May 1993 02:47:02 PST Message-Id: <.POSTMSTR.0000.1993 0528 0247 0247> Date: 28 May 93 02:48:03 PST From: "Central Postmaster" Subject: Mail Delivery Status Apparently-To: Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ***** Error in Mail Delivery ***** SOFT-SWITCH TRANSPORT ERROR Recipients: TDMAY@CPVMA.ION.CHEVRON.COM From List-Managers-Owner Fri May 28 13:50:28 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA06776; Fri, 28 May 93 13:50:28 GMT Received: from sally.informatik.rwth-aachen.de by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA06767; Fri, 28 May 93 06:49:23 PDT Received: from kaa (kaa.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE) by sally.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (4.1/sally-2) id AA07576; Fri, 28 May 93 15:49:37 +0200 Received: by kaa (4.1/POOL.3) id AA06084; Fri, 28 May 93 15:50:03 +0200 Message-Id: <9305281350.AA06084@kaa> From: berg@pool.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE (Stephen R. van den Berg) Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 15:50:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: John Wiegley's message as of 1993 May 27 Thu 8:09. <9305271209.AA19516@bahainvs> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: X-Listserver (Re: Pegasus X-Pmrqc header) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Peter Svanberg suggested: > X-Mailing-List: [list name/description]*[sequence number] <[list address]> > Example: > X-Mailing-List: Mailing list admin*207 What if we change the format of this field into: X-Mailing-List: some_comment The comment can then contain the name of the list and a sequence number, or an archive retrieval key, or whatever you like. Or it can even be omitted. By placing the up front we ease the parsing of this field for "dumb" parsers that only want to extract the submit address. The X-Mailing-List field should of course not be added by exploders, only by the originating big list. Chip Rosenthal wrote: >All email redistribution I perform, whether it be mailing lists I run, >those I explode and redistribute, or just aliases I forward to a couple >of people get pushed through a `resend' utility that tacks on something >like: >X-Redistributed-By: chinacat.unicom.com to the "list-managers" list Why would you need to know about the names of all the exploders through which this mail went? For 99.9% of all mails that cause problems it suffices to know what the name of the last exploder and what the name of the originating mailinglist was. The originating mailinglist can be extracted from the X-Mailing-List: field and the last exploder can be obtained from the Resent-Sender: field which you override. If you worry about the Resent-From: field, well, you should only add one if there wasn't already one there. John Wiegley contributed: > X-Listserver: "TLSP Listserv 1.0" X-Mailing-List: Daily Quote, msg #13 I'm missing the submit-address here, it doesn't hurt to include it. Makes any automated processing so much easier. > X-Archive: daily-quote-archive@bahainvs.org Again, add it if you have to. But I'd say that this usually can be inferred from either the mailinglist name (daily-quote-request would do in my case, every time), or from the X-Listserver: address. > Precedence: list Definitely a must. ------------- In general I always try to keep the number of extra fields down to a minimum, while of course ensuring no loss of diagnostics or functionality. -- Sincerely, berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless). berg@physik.tu-muenchen.de "And now for something *completely* different!" From List-Managers-Owner Fri May 28 15:27:27 1993 Return-Path: Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA06985; Fri, 28 May 93 15:27:27 GMT Received: from mimsy.cs.UMD.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015) id AA06978; Fri, 28 May 93 08:27:20 PDT Received: by mimsy.cs.UMD.EDU (5.61/UMIACS-0.9/04-05-88) id AA09978; Fri, 28 May 93 10:31:59 -0400 Received: by bahainvs (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.1) id AA25399; Fri, 28 May 93 10:03:34 EDT Date: Fri, 28 May 93 10:03:34 EDT From: johnw@bahainvs.org (John Wiegley) Message-Id: <9305281403.AA25399@bahainvs> Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.63) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: X-Listserver (Re: Pegasus X-Pmrqc header) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Stephen R. van den Berg hat geschrieben: > > X-Listserver: "TLSP Listserv 1.0" > Sure, add it if you have to. All the mailinglists I run use the > well known daily-quote-request address for administrivia. So, because > this name can be inferred from the mailinglist name, there is no need > to add YAEF (Yet Another Extra Field :-). Actually, the reason why the -request address SHOULDN'T appear in the "X-Listserver" field is because X-Listserver is pointing to the LISTSERVER, not the LIST MANAGER. The Listserver is what controls all of the lists on my machine. The List Manager is just the poor sod who has to run the list. In fact, it may even be proper on some lists to have: X-Listserver: "TLSP Listserv 1.0" X-List-Manager: Joe Schmoe X-Mailing-List: Daily Quote , msg #13 X-Archive: daily-quote-archive@bahainvs.org Precedence: list Of course, this does appear to be getting a bit ridiculous. Because the "main listserv" address usually CANNOT be inferred, X-Listserver appears to have some usefulness. "X-List-Manager" would only be used on those lists where the membership should know exactly who is managing/ moderating the list. "X-Mailing-List" is kind of redundant, but it may have processing value. "X-Mailing-List-Archive" (or "X-Archive") seems extraneous. But hey, why not? John