From list-managers-owner Fri Aug 2 02:03:57 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id BAA11753 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postie.das.gov.au (postie.das.gov.au [147.211.53.231]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id BAA11717 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from garry.pur.das.gov.au (garry.pur.das.gov.au [147.211.63.110]) by postie.das.gov.au (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA24553 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:22:19 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:22:19 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960802181819.2d0f8b4c@zeus.das.gov.au> X-Sender: strden@zeus.das.gov.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Denis Strangman Subject: Studies of lists Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hello list-managers I have recently undertaken a 35-question survey of the membership of a list I moderate (PUBSEC) which deals with public sector reform, management, and commercialisation. There was a fairly representative response from about 115 participants which is a good slice seeing as though there are only 370 on the List. Questions were asked about their attitude to the postings, age group, professional status, how they read their mail, how often, other lists they belonged to, its relation to their work etc. I am about to collate the returns and draw some conclusions and I am wondering if members know of similar studies/surveys which have been published. I am familiar with the Thomsen study of the PRForum list and the Ogan study of the TEL List. This research will be an extension of an earlier study entitled which I have parked at a ftp site The rtf version is I would welcome any leads for benchmarking purposes or contact with other list managers/moderators/researchers who have undertaken or plan similar studies. Cheers (Now I am going back to watch the Olympics) Denis Strangman Department of Administrative Services, GPO Box 1920 Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia. E-mail: denis.strangman@das.gov.au Phone: +61 6 2758808 fax +61 6 2753464 PUBSEC URL: http://www.das.gov.au/~world/listserv/pub_sec.html Have you checked out GELPROC? (Government ElectronicProcurement) URL: http://www.gems.gov.au/listserv/gelproc.htm From list-managers-owner Fri Aug 2 22:52:38 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA20387 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 22:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id WAA20333 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 22:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (tibbs@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA14778 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 00:39:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199608030539.AAA14778@sina.hpc.uh.edu> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: User wants to be removed from list archives X-Mailer: Mew beta version 0.98 on Emacs 19.30.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 00:39:18 -0500 From: Jason L Tibbitts III Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I've been waiting for this to happen, and now it has. A user has asked me to remove all of her messages from the archives of one of my lists. Actually she was generous in saying that I could keep the more informative messages, but that I should delete the less useful ones. The list in question started out being dedicated to a musical group, but during long periods where no interesting band-oriented news was about the list members rambled on and became somewhat of a group of friends wasting my bandwidth. Some of the content of the list is offensive (a band member posed nude for a magazine spread, so this is to be somewhat expected). I always made it clear that the list was archived; I even hacked together a nice system for presenting the list archive to the web, and made it Glimpse-searchable and everything. A pointer to the archives is attached to every message from the list. Alta Vista ended up indexing all of it, opening it up to even wider accessibility. There are currently 47 megabytes of archives spanning nearly two years of list traffic. I'm simply not willing to spend the days it would take for me to do the kind of filtering which this user wants. I suppose that if the person makes a big deal of this (which my superiors, as expected, would probably look down upon) my only recourse is to delete the entirety of the archives. Does anyone have any advice? I'm inclined to say "tough luck" and hope that it goes away, but somehow I don't think it's that easy. -- Jason L. Tibbitts III - tibbs@uh.edu - 713/743-8684 - 221SR1 System Manager: University of Houston High Performance Computing Center 1994 PC800 "Kuroneko" DoD# 1723 From list-managers-owner Fri Aug 2 23:22:39 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA22117 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.interramp.com (smtp2.interramp.com [38.8.200.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id XAA22110 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [38.11.195.170] by smtp2.interramp.com (8.6.12/SMI-4.1.3-PSI-irsmtp) X-Sender: us014319@pop3.interramp.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199608030539.AAA14778@sina.hpc.uh.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:17:23 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: "Mark E. Taylor" Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Jason wrote: >I've been waiting for this to happen, and now it has. A user has asked me >to remove all of her messages from the archives of one of my lists. >Actually she was generous in saying that I could keep the more informative >messages, but that I should delete the less useful ones. I was under the impression that once you sent a message to be posted to a list, you lost the privacy and ownership of your thoughts in the same manner one sends a letter to the editor of a newspaper. Once a letter is submitted and published, you cannot delete it from the archive because later the person thought the remarks intemperate. And since it is already in an archive for public viewing, I think this person has lost any right to remove postings at this point in time. And considering how much you would have to review, the task may not be possible. Regards, Mark Taylor -- "Cartoon Law: Cognizant Gravity When a cartoon character, such as Willy E. Coyote, races off of a cliff in pursuit of the Road Runner, it will appear that for a few moments that he will defy gravity. Upon realizing though that he is no longer on solid ground, Willy immediately falls to the ground. Scientists call this Cognizant Gravity and only cartoon characters can employ it." Mark Taylor Editor Online Fraud Newsletter From list-managers-owner Sat Aug 3 05:52:35 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id FAA06937 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 05:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id FAA06920 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 05:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (alancz@hou-tx10-24.ix.netcom.com [204.32.167.152]) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA23252 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 05:35:54 -0700 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 05:35:54 -0700 Message-Id: <199608031235.FAA23252@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: alancz@ix.netcom.com (Alan Czarnek) Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >I was under the impression that once you sent a message to be posted to a >list, you lost the privacy and ownership of your thoughts in the same >manner one sends a letter to the editor of a newspaper. ------ This is a good question, I am under the impression that any work of any author is automatically copyrighted by that author (with or without the copyright notice) and publishing that work does not make it public domain......... However, once a message is sent to a public list or to the Usenet, it is difficult to withdraw it from circulation - even if you delete all the messages from your archive, someone else may already have made a copy and have it stored elsewhere. But in any event, no matter where it is stored, it still is a copyrighted work of the author, under the US copyright law......... I am interested in other comments and perspectives on this issue. Alan Cz From list-managers-owner Sat Aug 3 06:52:37 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA09247 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 06:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ginger.vnet.net (ginger.vnet.net [166.82.1.69]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id GAA09240 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 06:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by ginger.vnet.net (8.6.13/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA08522 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 08:46:27 -0400 Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA06730 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 09:42:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 09:42:05 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame Reply-To: murr rhame To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives In-Reply-To: <199608031235.FAA23252@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Alan Czarnek wrote: > This is a good question, I am under the impression that any work of any > author is automatically copyrighted by that author (with or without the > copyright notice) and publishing that work does not make it public > domain......... Per the Copyright FAQ, this is correct. > However, once a message is sent to a public list or to the Usenet, it > is difficult to withdraw it from circulation... This is also correct. With a publicly and electronicly distributed article, it's impossible to un-publish the information. One could remove the data from the mailing list archives. Off hand, removing one user from the archives sounds like a pain in the butt project. Unless there is some compelling reason to honor the request, I'd tell the subscriber to get over it. Many people say things on the net which they regret later. - murr - From list-managers-owner Sat Aug 3 07:37:36 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA10931 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca (hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca [205.206.207.101]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id HAA10917 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ham_hal_g02_u01 ([205.206.207.30]) by hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id KAA09608; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 10:30:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <32035DFF.247A@harte-lyne.ca> Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 10:11:11 -0400 From: "James B. Byrne" Organization: Harte & Lyne Limited X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5aGold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason L Tibbitts III CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives References: <199608030539.AAA14778@sina.hpc.uh.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From a customer service point of view it would be better to determine the actual cost of performing the work, double it and tell them that they can have the service performed for the price stated. Then it is their choice. No one can be compelled to work for free. If they accept the fee then you are not out as you are being paid the fee that you determine was fair. If they decide that the work is too expensive then that it their decision. Regards, -- James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241 From list-managers-owner Sat Aug 3 08:07:36 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA12940 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.inforamp.net (Mail.InfoRamp.Net [204.191.136.66]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id HAA12922 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Widgette (ts43-16.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.141.56]) by mail.inforamp.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id KAA05923; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 10:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 10:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199608031444.KAA05923@mail.inforamp.net> X-Sender: dlj@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: alancz@ix.netcom.com (Alan Czarnek) From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:35 AM 03/08/96 -0700, Alan Czarnek wrote: >>I was under the impression that once you sent a message to be posted >to a >>list, you lost the privacy and ownership of your thoughts in the same >>manner one sends a letter to the editor of a newspaper. >------ > >This is a good question, I am under the impression that any work of any >author is automatically copyrighted by that author (with or without the >copyright notice) and publishing that work does not make it public >domain......... > Alan's point about copyright is perfectly correct. It is not, however, clear what rights if any this copyright carries, beyond there being a writer's monetary claim wrt any profitable reuse of the text. I think the Net is new news in this regard, and the courts, and maybe an International Convention or two, will clarify this somewhat over the next ten years or so. It does seem to me obvious that if I post messages about my lost cat on all the telephone poles in town, the copyright in the messages is still mine; this does not give me the right to demand that the telephone company clean them all up. -dlj. From list-managers-owner Sat Aug 3 08:52:39 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA15159 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 08:44:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from speedy.grolier.fr (speedy.grolier.fr [194.158.97.87]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id IAA15152 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 08:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [194.117.206.108] (ppp-206-108.neuilly.club-internet.fr [194.117.206.108]) by speedy.grolier.fr (8.7.5/MGC-960516) with SMTP id RAA24389 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 17:38:51 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 17:38:51 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: ozablock@mail.club-internet.fr (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: ozablock@club-internet.fr (Olivier Zablocki) Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, When you use a mailing-list, you are a member of a co-operative community. So, It's a point of moral standard to consider that the archives are the common property of the members! It's a scandal to ask for one thing and the contrary : to be ready to use the advantages of co-operative work and to keep the advantages of an entirely individual way of acting. On the Internet and especially on mailing-lists you have to give if you want to receive. How is it possible to give without giving? It is true that the US copyright law and the european laws are insane concerning this point of view. It's not our purpose to change the laws but it's possible to protect ourselves and the co-operative way of working. A simple disposition could be studied concerning this very point : the introduction of an obligatory engagement when people subscribe a mailing list to respect the "free common property" of the archives. olZ Ici, Olivier Zablocki ozablock@club-internet.fr From list-managers-owner Sat Aug 3 08:55:53 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA14868 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 08:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [198.7.0.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id IAA14833 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 08:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from oliver@localhost) by panix2.panix.com (8.7.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id LAA28524; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:35:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:35:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Oliver Garfield To: Jason L Tibbitts III cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives In-Reply-To: <199608030539.AAA14778@sina.hpc.uh.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Explain to the disgruntled corresponded exactly what you have communicated to the list-managers list pointing out the cost to you and the fact that they had notice of your intention to archive. ASk if they want you to publish a disclaimer for them. I would not do anything. If they don't understand your position, and that it has been widely cross indexed etc just wait. Let them go to an attorney and find out how much it will cost them to take action. Furthermore you are under some constraint as the operator of a public list to accept all comments and publish them. You might just ask them why they want their public comments to be expunged from the record. You after all did nothing except publish, without comment, their own words. *********************************************************************** *Oliver Garfield email: oliver@panix.com * *World Health Foundation phone: 212-877-4230 * *125 Riverside Drive * *New York, NY 10024 * * * *********************************************************************** From list-managers-owner Sat Aug 3 10:07:36 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA21461 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 10:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id KAA21454 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 10:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by idyllmtn.com (8.6.8/Idyllmtn) From: kynn@idyllmtn.com (Kynn Bartlett) Message-Id: <199608031700.KAA26159@idyllmtn.com> Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives To: byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca (James B. Byrne) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 10:00:33 -0700 (PDT) Cc: tibbs@hpc.uh.edu, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <32035DFF.247A@harte-lyne.ca> from "James B. Byrne" at Aug 3, 96 10:11:11 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk James Byrne wrote: > From a customer service point of view it would be better to determine > the actual cost of performing the work, double it and tell them that > they can have the service performed for the price stated. Then it is > their choice. No one can be compelled to work for free. I believe that the original writer was from an *.edu address -- and thus he can't really send them a bill for his services. Someone else mentioned telling them "tough cookies" and saying they'd have to sue to get it changed. This won't work well either; no public (or private) university wants to hear that they're getting sued because some computer admin doesn't respect copyrights over some list that university might not even be aware of or officially sanction. (The average university legal department really has no idea what kinds of mailing lists the sysadmins may be running from the CS dept's machines.) --Kynn From list-managers-owner Sat Aug 3 10:10:44 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA20687 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 09:52:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp8.netcom.com [163.179.3.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id JAA20680 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 09:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from duke.sagarmatha.com by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (8.6.12/SMI-4.1) Received: by duke (Smail3.1.28.1 #64) Message-Id: From: james@sagarmatha.com (James C. Armstrong) Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:52:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <32035DFF.247A@harte-lyne.ca> from "James B. Byrne" at Aug 3, 96 10:11:11 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk According to unnamed sources, James B. Byrne is alleged to have written => From a customer service point of view it would be better to determine => the actual cost of performing the work, double it and tell them that => they can have the service performed for the price stated. Then it is => their choice. No one can be compelled to work for free. => => If they accept the fee then you are not out as you are being paid the => fee that you determine was fair. If they decide that the work is too => expensive then that it their decision. A caution: Many employment agreements forbid working outside the job. Also, if the mailing list is on your employer's property, you'd be asking for money to modify your employer's environment. This is a potentially touchy issue for some employers. -- James C. Armstrong, Jr. | From hence, ye beauties, undeceived, james@sagarmatha.com (home) | Know, one false step is ne'er retrieved, | And be with caution bold. | Not all that tempts your wandering eyes | And heedless hearts is lawful prize; | Nor all that glisters gold. From list-managers-owner Sun Aug 4 08:37:41 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA18334 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 08:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psyche.mit.edu (PSYCHE.MIT.EDU [18.88.0.85]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id IAA18327 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 08:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from starr.mit.edu.mit.edu by psyche.mit.edu (4.1/DA1.0.4) id AA23652; Sun, 4 Aug 96 11:33:36 EDT Date: Sun, 4 Aug 96 11:33:36 EDT From: Eric Loeb Message-Id: <9608041533.AA23652@psyche.mit.edu> To: alancz@ix.netcom.com, dlj@pobox.com Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I want to be removed too! Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam From list-managers-owner Sun Aug 4 13:22:48 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA03447 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp6.netcom.com [163.179.3.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id NAA03440 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from duke.sagarmatha.com by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (8.6.12/SMI-4.1) id NAA16316; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:02:04 -0700 Received: by duke (Smail3.1.28.1 #64) id m0un8A7-000gczC; Sun, 4 Aug 96 11:44 PDT Message-Id: From: james@sagarmatha.com (James C. Armstrong) Subject: Reply from Compuserve To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 11:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Cc: 100272.3541@compuserve.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk A while back, I mentioned that I was forced to move Compuserve subscribers on my mailing lists to digest format because of Compuserve's lack of adherence to accepted Internet standards. Although this did upset several of my subscribers, I felt it was a necessary thing to do (as have several other list managers here). My complaints to Compuserve had gone unanswered. One of my subscribers took it upon himself to make an inquery on his own. (I've asked him if he still has the original of his query.) I sent him a short writeup of my view of the problem, which I will repeat here: :> Basically, the problem is that Compuserve and Wow mis-use the return :> addressing information that accompanies an email message. Each :> messgae has several addresses: :> :> From Used as an envelope address, error messages should be sent here. :> From: The address of the original sender. Used for content-based :> replies, unless Reply-To: is set. :> Reply-To: The address for content-based replies. :> Sender: Used as a reference if mail is forwarded. :> :> When someone sends a message to a mailing list, it should have the :> header changed as follows: :> :> From gets set to the mailing list administrative address. :> From: is unchanged. :> Reply-To: is set to the address of the mailing list. :> Sender: is changed to the administrative address. :> :> When a message encounters a problem, the error message should be sent :> to the From or Sender: addresses, these are administrative messages. :> Instead, Compuserve (and wow, which is owned by Compuserve) uses the :> Reply-To: address. :> :> Fortunately, I've configured the mailing lists so that only members of :> the lists can post. This means that the error messages are rejected, :> but they then fill my mailbox. :> :> If the list were configured so that anyone could post, you then have :> the classical mail-bomb situation. If a message is posted, and a :> compuserve address has a problem, it sends a message to the list, :> which is then forwarded to everybody, including the problem address. :> This error message then generates another error message, and so on. :> If more than one address has a problem, this then explodes :> geometrically, eventually filling everybody's mailboxes with :> Compuserve error messages. :> :> Several mailing list administrators have taken to either excluding :> subscribers from compuserve, or moving them to digests only. I've :> taken the latter step, although I don't like it. Gordon Lamb received an answer from a CompuServe administrator recently, that he forwarded to me today. In it, the administrator indicates that it is Compuserve's policy to discourage Compuserve members from joining Internet mailing lists, furthermore, even though their software is causing a tremendous annoyance to Internet mailing list administrators throughout the globe, they have absolutely no intention of changing their software. I enclose a copy of their response: According to unnamed sources, Gordon Lamb is alleged to have written => Subj: WinCIM Internal Editor Section: CompuServe Software => From: Bob Parsons [Sysop], 111111,2433 #24056 => To: Gordon Lamb, 100272,3541 01 August 1996 11:52:17 => => Hi Gordon, => => We do not encourage mailing lists I am afraid as they tend to encourage junk => mail and therefore we have no plans to make changes to our system in the way you => mention. => => Sorry! => => Regards, => => Bob Gordon has informed me that he is looking to change ISP's as a result of this. I intend to invoke a permanent ban on compuserve subscriptions within the next month (to allow those subscribers to change ISPs). I also intend to publish this response in the news.net-abuse newsgroups. Finally, as a member of a mailing list associated with Internet journalism, I intend to forward a copy of this to that list, should any of those journalists be interested in this story. If any other list administrators are equally so inclined, please drop me a note, and I'll add your support to my efforts. -- James C. Armstrong, Jr. | It's time to taste what you most fear james@sagarmatha.com (home) | Right Guard will not help you here. | Brace yourself, my dear! | It's a holiday in Cambodia! From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 01:52:44 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id BAA08485 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 01:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from weber.ucsd.edu (weber.ucsd.edu [132.239.147.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id BAA08468 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 01:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by weber.ucsd.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA25689; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 01:51:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 01:51:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Cyndi Norman Message-Id: <199608050851.BAA25689@weber.ucsd.edu> To: tibbs@hpc.uh.edu CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@weber.ucsd.edu In-reply-to: Jason L Tibbitts III's message of Sat, 03 Aug 1996 00:39:18 -0500 <199608030539.AAA14778@sina.hpc.uh.edu> Subject: User wants to be removed from list archives Reply-to: cnorman@weber.ucsd.edu Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk My two cents: There are several issues going on here, although I am seeing attempts to approach this topic as if it were possible to lump all the issues together. Copyright is one issue people have mentioned, but it's not the underlying issue at hand here. The person asking to be removed from the archives hasn't claimed (to my knowledge) that keeping her messages around is illegal. She just *wants* them removed. Just like the archives/pointers that dejanews and alta vista keep of usenet posts are (IMHO) perfectly legal but that doens't mean I *want* my old posts there. I think it's a reasonable request to ask a list manager to remove your posts from the archives. But it's also reasonable for a list manager to refuse. I offer the removal service for my subscribers (some people have to hide their disabilities from their employees and others are involved in lawsuits). To date, almost no one has asked me to remove anything. In fact, I think I've only been asked to remove one post. And I was asked to remove the snail mail address from someone's .sig on about 5 posts. I insist that the person provide me with the date of the post and header info. No one has asked me so far to do any major editing. I would probably refuse if they did, unless I had a very compelling reason. The reason would be the issue some people here have brought up: major edits are a pain in the butt to do. As far as the ethics of it go, as long as people are informed that their posts go into archives (I state it in the intro message I send to all new subscribers), I'd say you are covered. But, as list managers, we provide services for our subscribers that aren't things any law or rulebook requires us to do. If it's easy for you to edit the archives, I think you *ought* to do it upon request. In the case presented, it would not be an easy task; you have to weigh your time/energy needs with your desire to be "nice" and help someone out. You have done this and have decided against doing it. I can't see how you'd be compelled to do it. Perhaps you can comprimise by offering to remove the 5 or so worst posts (she has to decide which they are and give you exact header info). I would be direct with her and explain that it would take hours upon hours to do. Good luck. Cyndi __________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@ucsd.edu ___________________________________________ http://weber.ucsd.edu/~cnorman From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 06:38:29 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA23955 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 06:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psyche.mit.edu (PSYCHE.MIT.EDU [18.88.0.85]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id GAA23948 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 06:32:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from starr.mit.edu.mit.edu by psyche.mit.edu (4.1/DA1.0.4) id AA25698; Mon, 5 Aug 96 09:32:51 EDT Date: Mon, 5 Aug 96 09:32:51 EDT From: Eric Loeb Message-Id: <9608051332.AA25698@psyche.mit.edu> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm a stupid individual! > From kynn@idyllmtn.com Sun Aug 4 11:40:42 1996 > Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives > To: loeb@psyche.mit.edu (Eric Loeb) > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] > Content-Type: text > Content-Length: 7966 > > You're a pretty stupid individual, aren't you? > > > > > I want to be removed too! > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 06:43:03 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA24072 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 06:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psyche.mit.edu (PSYCHE.MIT.EDU [18.88.0.85]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id GAA24028 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 06:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from starr.mit.edu.mit.edu by psyche.mit.edu (4.1/DA1.0.4) id AA25761; Mon, 5 Aug 96 09:36:38 EDT Date: Mon, 5 Aug 96 09:36:38 EDT From: Eric Loeb Message-Id: <9608051336.AA25761@psyche.mit.edu> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Yeah, I sure did! > To: loeb@psyche.mit.edu > Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives > X-Mailer: ScoMail 3.0.Bd > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > On Sun Aug 4 11":37:48 1996 Eric Loeb wrote: > > >From rigel.callemx.com!relay5.uu.net!greatcircle.com!list-managers-owner Sun > Aug 4 11:37:48 1996 > >Date: Sun, 4 Aug 96 11:33:36 EDT > >From: Eric Loeb > >Message-Id: <9608041533.AA23652@psyche.mit.edu> > >To: alancz@ix.netcom.com, dlj@pobox.com > >Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives > >Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com > >Sender: list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com > > > >I want to be removed too! > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > >Spam spam spam spam > > > > And eggs? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Donald Loughlin donl@smcs.com SSSS M M CCCC SSSS > Super Micro Computer Systems S MM MM C S > 6 Essex Drive SSSS M M M C SSSS > Hauppauge NY 11788 S M M C S > +1-516-582-3404 FAX +1-516-234-6943 SSSS M M CCCC SSSS > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 06:53:30 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA24190 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 06:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psyche.mit.edu (PSYCHE.MIT.EDU [18.88.0.85]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id GAA24183 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 06:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from starr.mit.edu.mit.edu by psyche.mit.edu (4.1/DA1.0.4) id AA25775; Mon, 5 Aug 96 09:38:44 EDT Date: Mon, 5 Aug 96 09:38:44 EDT From: Eric Loeb Message-Id: <9608051338.AA25775@psyche.mit.edu> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: hurray! Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From CEO@Citadel.Net Sun Aug 4 13:55:02 1996 > Comments: Authenticated sender is > Organization: Execu/Quest Marketing Consultants > To: Eric Loeb > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives > Reply-To: CEO@Citadel.Net > Priority: normal > X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) > > Greetings! > > Since you wanted to be removed, I've forwarded your email to your ISP > and asked them to remove you for abusing the email service. Hope they > can remove you. > Me too! Thanks for the help. I suspect the problem is not on the end of my "ISP", unfortunately, but every new effort brings us closer to a solution From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 07:52:54 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA00524 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 07:44:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from loiosh.kei.com (loiosh.kei.com [192.88.144.32]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id HAA00492 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 07:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from ckd@localhost) by loiosh.kei.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA28341; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 10:43:51 -0400 (EDT) To: loeb@psyche.mit.edu CC: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: how to use Internet mailing lists X-Attribution: ckd Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.71) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Christopher Davis Date: 05 Aug 1996 10:43:50 -0400 Message-ID: Lines: 34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk The standard, for many years, has been to use listname-request@list.host as the administrivia address. I'm fairly certain someone at MIT knows about the -request convention. In the case of list-managers, mail to the -request address results in a message explaining how to use majordomo, and noting that further requests should be sent to majordomo@greatcircle.com. Two of the commands are described as follows: ================================================================ This will unsubscribe the account from which you send the message. If you are subscribed with some other address, you'll have to send a command of the following form instead: unsubscribe list-managers other-address@your_site.your_net If you don't know what address you are subscribed with, you can send the following command to see who else is on the list (assuming that information isn't designated "private" by the owner of the list):o who list-managers ================================================================ A quick string search for "loeb" on the results of that command found: loeb@starr.mit.edu I suggest mailing the command unsubscribe list-managers loeb@starr.mit.edu to majordomo@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 09:32:41 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA08685 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 09:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id JAA08658 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 09:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by idyllmtn.com (8.6.8/Idyllmtn) id JAA06843; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 09:19:06 -0700 From: kynn@idyllmtn.com (Kynn Bartlett) Message-Id: <199608051619.JAA06843@idyllmtn.com> Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives To: loeb@psyche.mit.edu (Eric Loeb) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 09:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <9608051332.AA25698@psyche.mit.edu> from "Eric Loeb" at Aug 5, 96 09:32:51 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric Loeb wrote: > I'm a stupid individual! > > From kynn@idyllmtn.com Sun Aug 4 11:40:42 1996 > > Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives > > To: loeb@psyche.mit.edu (Eric Loeb) > > You're a pretty stupid individual, aren't you? > > > [300 lines of] Spam spam spam spam For the record, I'd just like to note that I sent my email directly to Eric, and not to the list. I do not, at all, appreciate his reposting it here, and I'll be writing to his postmaster shortly to complain about his abusive actions on this mailing list. --Kynn Bartlett From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 11:22:57 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA17449 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 11:19:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sys2.bloodstockwww.com (sys2.bloodstockwww.com [206.24.34.70]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id LAA17430 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 11:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from billy@localhost) by sys2.bloodstockwww.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) id OAA01140 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 14:18:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Antoniadis Message-Id: <199608051818.OAA01140@sys2.bloodstockwww.com> Subject: Please help! To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 14:18:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8a] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, I use Majordomo to occasionally send mail to thousands of our business customers informing them of new products. Our mailing list is password protected so noone else can send mail to it but I have one major problem: Our customers that use AOL seem to get other AOL customer's email addresses attached to the end of our mail. In other words, they can see all the other AOL email addresses from our list. These addresses are attached to the "Apparently-To:" header. If anyone whould know how to prevent that from happening, please help! Billy Billy@bris.com or SysAdmin@bris.com From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 11:53:01 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA18809 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 11:40:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from E-MAIL.COM (e-mail.com [199.171.26.5]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id LAA18793 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 11:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608051840.LAA18793@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from us.ibm.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 7709; Mon, 05 Aug 96 14:40:23 EDT Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 14:39:52 EDT From: jcanterbury@us.ibm.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: note of 08/05/96 14:28 X-Sender-Info: Jerry L. Canterbury t/l 372-3302 B183, 2J145 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Please help! Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Bill Antoniadis wrote: >In other words, they can see >the other AOL email addresses from our list. These addresses are attach >to the "Apparently-To:" header. Does this happen even when you use the BCC instead of TO to address your mail? Jerry Canterbury, Buckeye Consulting Internet: jcanterbury@us.ibm.com or jcanterb@worldweb.net http://www.worldweb.net/~jcanterb From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 12:52:51 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA21774 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 12:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psyche.mit.edu (PSYCHE.MIT.EDU [18.88.0.85]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id MAA21765; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 12:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from starr.mit.edu.mit.edu by psyche.mit.edu (4.1/DA1.0.4) id AA28098; Mon, 5 Aug 96 15:39:02 EDT Date: Mon, 5 Aug 96 15:39:02 EDT From: Eric Loeb Message-Id: <9608051939.AA28098@psyche.mit.edu> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com, loeb@psyche.mit.edu Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives Cc: list-managers-approval@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I am so stupid. stupid stupid stupid Don't you want me off this list? > From list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Mon Aug 5 09:52:49 1996 > To: list-managers@greatcircle.com > Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives > Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM > > > I'm a stupid individual! > > > > From kynn@idyllmtn.com Sun Aug 4 11:40:42 1996 > > Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives > > To: loeb@psyche.mit.edu (Eric Loeb) > > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] > > Content-Type: text > > Content-Length: 7966 > > > > You're a pretty stupid individual, aren't you? > > > > > > > > I want to be removed too! > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > Spam spam spam spam > > > > > > > > > > > From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 16:07:45 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA06935 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 15:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.eskimo.com (mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id PAA06926 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 15:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eskimo.com (jimo@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA09193; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 15:53:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Osborn Received: by eskimo.com (8.7.5) id PAA26909; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 15:52:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 15:52:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608052252.PAA26909@eskimo.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: AOL lost its MIME? Cc: support@aol.com, techsupport@aol.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk A few weeks ago several of my digest subscribers on AOL began complaining that "all the headers are missing" from the digest articles. It's a SmartList 3.10 list, and the digests are sent as MIME multipart digests, and of course the individual article headers are there; it just seems that as of a few weeks ago AOL readers have lost their ability to see them. I know that AOL binary attachments are MIME encoded (they apparently used to understand uuencode too, but no longer), so you'd think they'd be able to make sense of MIME multipart digests too. Is anyone familiar enough with AOL to know what I should advise my poor AOL subscribers to do, other than "contact AOL tech support?" Does anyone know who I should contact at AOL to ask this same question? Thanks in advance, jimo@eskimo.com From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 16:37:41 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA08047 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 16:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.eskimo.com (mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id QAA08036 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 16:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eskimo.com (jimo@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA15126; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 16:24:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Osborn Received: by eskimo.com (8.7.5) id QAA04986; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 16:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 16:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608052323.QAA04986@eskimo.com> To: james@sagarmatha.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply from Compuserve Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk james@sagarmatha.com (James C. Armstrong) writes: >A while back, I mentioned that I was forced to move Compuserve >subscribers on my mailing lists to digest format because of Compuserve's >lack of adherence to accepted Internet standards. >... >:> When someone sends a message to a mailing list, it should have the >:> header changed as follows: >:> ... >:> Reply-To: is set to the address of the mailing list. Really bad idea to point the Reply-To: at the list. Aside from the mail-storm potential James describes (and you can't always trust the non-subscriber-post filters to prevent them), keep in mind that some subscribers may need their own Reply-To: headers, so that they can receive email. A number of my subscribers' ISPs force From: lines on them that aren't valid reception addresses, and there's nothing they can do about it, except add a Reply-To: line with their correct address. If my list had its own Reply-To: line, they'd be out of luck. This is not to condone Compuserve's misconfiguration, but they're not the only misconfigured ISP out there. Why subject your list to this risk of a mail-storm? Another reason to avoid Reply-To:s is social: many a flame war has been contained by having those heat-of-the-moment remarks go only to one recipient. If they'd been sent to the entire list, the resulting storm of the various sides shouting each other down can cause good people to unsubscribe. Better it takes a tiny bit more effort to hit the whole list, when minds aren't thinking clearly. Cheers, jimo@eskimo.com From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 17:37:48 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA14108 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 17:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psyche.mit.edu (PSYCHE.MIT.EDU [18.88.0.85]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id RAA14101 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 17:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from starr.mit.edu.mit.edu by psyche.mit.edu (4.1/DA1.0.4) id AA29518; Mon, 5 Aug 96 20:32:37 EDT Date: Mon, 5 Aug 96 20:32:37 EDT From: Eric Loeb Message-Id: <9608060032.AA29518@psyche.mit.edu> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: A disgrace! Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From kjetilho@ifi.uio.no Mon Aug 5 16:06:55 1996 > To: loeb@psyche.mit.edu > Subject: Re: User wants to be removed from list archives > > You are a disgrace to MIT. > > > Kjetil T. > I am a disgrace to MIT! Please stop me before I spam again! From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 19:37:50 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id TAA20100 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 19:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from garcon.unicom.com (garcon.unicom.com [192.108.105.37]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id TAA20093 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 19:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chip@localhost) by garcon.unicom.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15742; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 21:34:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Chip Rosenthal Message-Id: <199608060234.VAA15742@garcon.unicom.com> Subject: Re: Reply from Compuserve To: jimo@eskimo.com (Jim Osborn) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 21:34:08 -0500 (CDT) Cc: james@sagarmatha.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199608052323.QAA04986@eskimo.com> from "Jim Osborn" at Aug 05, 1996 04:23:35 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0a10] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Jim Osborn writes: > Really bad idea to point the Reply-To: at the list. Seconded. I've got a paper that beats this issue to a bloody pulp. It's at . Unless you are dead set in your ways (pro or con), I'd urge folks to take a gander. -- Chip Rosenthal * Unicom Systems Development * Unix system programming/support * Internet * test/ctrl/comm systems URL: http://www.unicom.com/ * 48 68 D8 BE 10 C8 6B DE 60 17 00 0B A7 83 99 8E From list-managers-owner Mon Aug 5 22:38:06 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA27389 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 22:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) id WAA27381 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 22:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tymix.Tymnet.COM (tymix.tymnet.com [131.146.2.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id QAA05124 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tymix.Tymnet.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29734; Thu, 1 Aug 96 16:30:42 PDT Received: from tardis by tymix.Tymnet.COM (in.smtpd); 1 Aug 0 16:30:41 PDT Received: by tardis.tymnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12465; Thu, 1 Aug 96 16:32:49 PDT Date: Thu, 1 Aug 96 16:32:49 PDT From: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Message-Id: <9608012332.AA12465@tardis.tymnet.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Unsubscribing 3rd party from various lists? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Forgive me if this is off-topic, but I am looking for information on how a sysadmin can deal with cancelled users that were on various mailing lists. Here is something that comes up all the time: An employee leaves the company, his account is cancelled, and then the postmaster of the local system starts getting notification of bounce messages. The user had to some LISTSERV lists, some MAJORDOMO lists, and who knows what else. What does the sysadmin at the destination host do to stop this unwanted mail? It appears that LISTSERV demands that you re-activate the account long enough to send an UNSUBSCRIBE request, assuming that the mail is not being forwarded from some unknown alias. In one case, I send mail to OWNER-listname and listname-REQUEST, got no bounces, but mail continued to arrive. After three months, I resent the unsubscribe request to OWNER-listname, listname-REQUEST, listname-OUT and listname-DISTRIBUTION. Only then did the list owner respond. Does anyone one this list have a nice cheat-sheet with the following? 1) How to recognize what type of list (listserv, majordomo, etc). 2) What steps are required for a third-party "unsubscribe" request. -Joe From list-managers-owner Tue Aug 6 00:38:27 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id AAA04594 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 00:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) id AAA04570 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 00:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay1.shore.net (relay1.shore.net [192.233.85.129]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id AAA03699 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 00:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smoe.org (jeffw@smoe.org [204.167.97.154]) by relay1.shore.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA27754 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 03:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by smoe.org (4.1/SMI-4.1-hack1) id AA25253; Mon, 5 Aug 96 03:43:33 EDT Date: Mon, 5 Aug 96 03:43:33 EDT From: jeffw@smoe.org (Jeff Wasilko) Message-Id: <9608050743.AA25253@smoe.org> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: help needed w/ forged mail (attack on list) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk One of the mailing lists I manage is being attacked by a forger...I can't stop him because he is forging the addresses of list members (and the list has been restricted to list-members since the Krazy Kevin days). I suspect he's using Alternet's dialup network to send the message. I've contacted their NOC, as well as Bellcore (since it looks like he used their mail server). The message he forged thru Bellcore was send 20+ times..The other one (from Syracuse) was only sent once... Can someone confirm that I'm on the right track? Is there anything I can do while I wait for UUnet's legal department to get back to me? Here's a couple of sample messages: >From majordom Sun Aug 4 16:49:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by smoe.org (4.1/SMI-4.1-hack1) id AA17835; Sun, 4 Aug 96 16:49:05 EDT Received: by smoe.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sun, 4 Aug 1996 16:49:05 -0400 Received: by smoe.org (4.1/SMI-4.1-hack1) id AA17822; Sun, 4 Aug 96 16:49:02 EDT Received: from mailbox.syr.edu by smoe.org (4.1/SMI-4.1-hack1) id AA17816; Sun, 4 Aug 96 16:48:58 EDT Received: from hydra.syr.edu (root@hydra.syr.edu [128.230.1.33]) by mailbox.syr.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA14968 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 16:48:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pool025.Max29.New-York.NY.DYNIP.ALTER.NET (pool025.Max29.New-York.NY.DYNIP.ALTER.NET [153.37.72.153]) by hydra.syr.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA15397 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 16:48:34 -0400 (EDT) From: bmeskin@mailbox.syr.edu Message-Id: <199608042048.QAA15397@hydra.syr.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: hydra.syr.edu: Host pool025.Max29.New-York.NY.DYNIP.ALTER.NET [153.37.72.153] didn't use HELO protocol Date: 04 Aug 96 5:11:30 PM To: jewel@smoe.org Subject: Every one look out! Sender: owner-jewel@smoe.org X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "jewel-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. Precedence: bulk Status: RO Okay everyone listen up. I am the Mad Jewel Bomber. I have your list at my mercy. If you people don't wnat all sorts of hell and damnation to rain down upon you you will give in to my list of demands, which will be forth coming soon, so watch for it. By the way in case you fools haven't figured it out I.m not Bret I`m just borrowing his moniker for this message, i'll show up as some one else next. >From majordom Mon Aug 5 00:28:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by smoe.org (4.1/SMI-4.1-hack1) id AA21356; Mon, 5 Aug 96 00:28:14 EDT Received: by smoe.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 5 Aug 1996 00:28:13 -0400 Received: by smoe.org (4.1/SMI-4.1-hack1) id AA21217; Mon, 5 Aug 96 00:27:32 EDT Received: from thumper.bellcore.com (thumper-13.bellcore.com) by smoe.org (4.1/SMI-4.1-hack1) id AA21091; Mon, 5 Aug 96 00:26:32 EDT Received: from (pool032.Max11.New-York.NY.DYNIP.ALTER.NET [153.37.41.32]) by thumper.bellcore.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id AAA27825 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 00:26:09 -0400 From: jewelfan@juno.com Message-Id: <199608050426.AAA27825@thumper.bellcore.com> Date: 05 Aug 96 12:48:56 AM To: jewel@smoe.org Subject: Listen up!!! Sender: owner-jewel@smoe.org X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "jewel-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. Precedence: bulk Status: RO Alright you sorry fuckheads! I'm hear to tell you I am not to be ignored!! If you people contiue to ignore my posts, I'll be forced to make Jewel mute. Then what will you pathetic, no-life, losers do. Your's truly the Mad Jewel Bomber!!! From list-managers-owner Tue Aug 6 01:09:00 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id AAA08373 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 00:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ginger.vnet.net (ginger.vnet.net [166.82.1.69]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id AAA08189 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 00:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by ginger.vnet.net (8.6.13/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA02778 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 03:01:42 -0400 Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA27594 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 03:56:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 03:56:51 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: help needed w/ forged mail (attack on list) In-Reply-To: <9608050743.AA25253@smoe.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Jeff Wasilko wrote: > One of the mailing lists I manage is being attacked by a forger...I > can't stop him because he is forging the addresses of list members (and > the list has been restricted to list-members since the Krazy Kevin > days). As far as I know, the only sure cure for a forged address spam attack, is to use a moderated list. You can cut down on the possibility a bit by using a concealed subscriber list... Concealing the subscriber list only limits the forger to using the addresses of those who have posted. If there are techniques other than moderation or working with the sysadmin of the spammer's home, I'd like to know more about it. Speaking of Crazy Kevin, I've not been hit by him for a couple of months. Did AOL's lawyers finally catch up with Kevin? - murr - From list-managers-owner Tue Aug 6 02:08:19 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id CAA17289 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 02:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ginger.vnet.net (ginger.vnet.net [166.82.1.69]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id CAA17275 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 02:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by ginger.vnet.net (8.6.13/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA03236 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 04:05:34 -0400 Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA28703 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 05:00:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 05:00:04 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply from Compuserve In-Reply-To: <199608060234.VAA15742@garcon.unicom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Chip Rosenthal wrote: > Jim Osborn writes: > > Really bad idea to point the Reply-To: at the list. > > Seconded. I've got a paper that beats this issue to a bloody pulp. > It's at . Unless > you are dead set in your ways (pro or con), I'd urge folks to take > a gander. I'm not dead set in favor of Reply-To: list-address. On the other hand, I've been hosting and or listowning several lists with a few hundred subscribers each. All are under listproc with the Reply-To pointing to the list. Other than the rare misdirected private reply, I've had no problems. I've never seen a loop with listproc. I will look at you article on the issue. My Compu$erve subscribers have no more problems than any other group of subscribers (filled mailboxes, new address and similar admistrivia). My biggest pains are the bounce-forevers [tm] from the UK. - murr - From list-managers-owner Tue Aug 6 06:23:00 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA29031 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 06:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp5.netcom.com [163.179.3.5]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id GAA29024 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 06:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from duke.sagarmatha.com by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (8.6.12/SMI-4.1) id GAA06000; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 06:18:21 -0700 Received: by duke (Smail3.1.28.1 #64) id m0unlWe-000gczC; Tue, 6 Aug 96 05:46 PDT Message-Id: From: james@sagarmatha.com (James C. Armstrong) Subject: Re: Reply from Compuserve To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "murr rhame" at Aug 6, 96 05:00:04 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk According to unnamed sources, murr rhame is alleged to have written => On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Chip Rosenthal wrote: => > Jim Osborn writes: => > > Really bad idea to point the Reply-To: at the list. => > Seconded. I've got a paper that beats this issue to a bloody pulp. => > It's at . Unless => > you are dead set in your ways (pro or con), I'd urge folks to take => > a gander. => I'm not dead set in favor of Reply-To: list-address. On the other hand, => I've been hosting and or listowning several lists with a few hundred => subscribers each. All are under listproc with the Reply-To pointing to => the list. Other than the rare misdirected private reply, I've had no => problems. I've never seen a loop with listproc. I will look at you => article on the issue. The lists that I administer are intended for group discussions; by concensus of the members we feel that Reply-To is the best solution. Group replies, such as this message, result in some folks receiving multiple copies, since all too often people do not edit the To: line in headers, if that is even an option in their mailer. Most of my list members are not computer savvy. (I note that even some of the list manager members replying to this thread have sent double notes, due to not editing the headers! If we, who are expected to be among the most email-savvy, are too lazy to do this, or forget, how can we fairly expect our list members to do the same?) This begs the question: Should we all be required to add this "burden" to our list members because a large ISP refuses to conform to accepted standards and a published RFC? If so, what is the value of other RFC's? => My Compu$erve subscribers have no more problems than any other group of => subscribers (filled mailboxes, new address and similar admistrivia). My => biggest pains are the bounce-forevers [tm] from the UK. I set my error-return address to a filter that attempts to perform some basic administrative functions, such as unsubscribing addresses that are returned as non-existant. The messages that get bounced back as being sent to the list but not from a subscriber (it is a closed list) are not filtered that way, instead, I look at each to see if a subscriber's address has changed, etc... Since the list gets somewhere around 40 messages a day, if a mailbox for a Compuserve user is filled, and I'm out of town for a couple days, that's a lot of mail to filter. Since most of my subscribers are UK, could you please explain the "bounce-forevers"? -- James C. Armstrong, Jr. | It's time to taste what you most fear james@sagarmatha.com (home) | Right Guard will not help you here. | Brace yourself, my dear! | It's a holiday in Cambodia! From list-managers-owner Tue Aug 6 08:52:56 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA10146 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 08:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from camco.celestial.com (camco.celestial.com [192.136.111.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id IAA10138 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 08:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by camco.celestial.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0unoNV-000F6YC; Tue, 6 Aug 96 08:49 PDT Message-Id: From: bill@celestial.com (Bill Campbell) Subject: Re: Unsubscribing 3rd party from various lists? To: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 08:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <9608012332.AA12465@tardis.tymnet.com> from "Joe Smith" at Aug 1, 96 04:32:49 pm Reply-To: bill@Celestial.COM Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA 98040 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >Forgive me if this is off-topic, but I am looking for information on how a >sysadmin can deal with cancelled users that were on various mailing lists. > >Here is something that comes up all the time: > An employee leaves the company, his account is cancelled, and then > the postmaster of the local system starts getting notification of > bounce messages. > ..... I've had some of our ISP customers ask this same question, and my thought is to create a dead-user alias for deleted accounts, and process that alias with a deliver script (or procmail if that suits you better). This script would look at the headers and send a message back to the list manager saying that this account is no longer on the systems in such a manner that the list manager will be sure that it's really a bad account and not just another mailer glitch where somebody's screwed up their alias file. Once this message goes out, I would add the list-manager/email-address into a database so that only one messages goes out. The script would then just drop the mail into /dev/null for this and any subsequent messages. So far, I haven't had time to do this, (or to ask this list if somebody's already done something similar :-). Bill -- INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Systems, Inc. UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 2835 82nd Avenue S.E. S-100 FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering. -- Doctor Who, "Face of Evil" From list-managers-owner Tue Aug 6 09:54:21 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA15709 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 09:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hera.cuci.nl (hera.cuci.nl [194.183.100.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id JAA15644 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 09:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from srb@localhost) by hera.cuci.nl (8.7.5/BuGless_1.02) id SAA25694; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 18:42:57 +0200 Message-Id: <199608061642.SAA25694@hera.cuci.nl> From: srb@cuci.nl (Stephen R. van den Berg) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 18:42:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: bill@Celestial.COM's message as of 1996 Aug 6 Tue 8:49. To: bill@Celestial.COM, jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Subject: Re: Unsubscribing 3rd party from various lists? Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk bill@Celestial.COM wrote: >>Forgive me if this is off-topic, but I am looking for information on how a >>sysadmin can deal with cancelled users that were on various mailing lists. >I've had some of our ISP customers ask this same question, and my >thought is to create a dead-user alias for deleted accounts, and >you better). This script would look at the headers and send a message >back to the list manager saying that this account is no longer on the >systems in such a manner that the list manager will be sure that it's >really a bad account and not just another mailer glitch where >somebody's screwed up their alias file. Once this message goes out, I >would add the list-manager/email-address into a database so that only >one messages goes out. The script would then just drop the mail into >/dev/null for this and any subsequent messages. Very bad idea. What if the list-manager misses this one message for some reason? Endless heaps of bandwidth wasted, since the address will stay on the list forever. I'd say, just bounce it with a user-unknown message. That tends to work best. -- Sincerely, srb@cuci.nl Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless). "Be spontaneous!" From list-managers-owner Tue Aug 6 10:08:30 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA16949 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:06:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id KAA16932 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mne.ifi.uio.no (1232@mne.ifi.uio.no [129.240.70.5]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:06:38 +0200 From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by mne.ifi.uio.no ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:06:37 +0200 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:06:37 +0200 Message-Id: <199608061706.9039.mne.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> To: james@sagarmatha.com CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: (james@sagarmatha.com) Subject: Re: Reply from Compuserve Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [James C. Armstrong] | The lists that I administer are intended for group discussions; by | concensus of the members we feel that Reply-To is the best | solution. Group replies, such as this message, result in some | folks receiving multiple copies, since all too often people do not | edit the To: line in headers It's a feature, especially on large lists with long distribution delays or digests. That way, a dialogue can have a quicker pace than the mailing list host can maintain. | if that is even an option in their mailer. Well, then they shouldn't be using that program. There's no reason to use bad software, especially as there are good, free programs available. Kjetil T. From list-managers-owner Tue Aug 6 12:37:56 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA02458 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 12:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (searn.sunet.se [192.36.125.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id MAA02397 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 12:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608061936.MAA02397@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 3114; Tue, 06 Aug 96 21:33:03 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 2917; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:33:03 +0200 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:06:42 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Reply from Compuserve To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:06:37 +0200 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:06:37 +0200 Kjetil Torgrim Homme said: >[James C. Armstrong] > >| The lists that I administer are intended for group discussions; by >| concensus of the members we feel that Reply-To is the best >| solution. Group replies, such as this message, result in some >| folks receiving multiple copies, since all too often people do not >| edit the To: line in headers > >It's a feature, especially on large lists with long distribution >delays or digests. That way, a dialogue can have a quicker pace than >the mailing list host can maintain. Perhaps this made sense a few years ago (and it would still be a matter of personal opinion), but we're in 1996. Today you can buy a very fast Internet server for not much money at all. Now I'm not saying that there aren't many sites where the boss doesn't think upgrading the machines is a good idea and where the mailing list host still needs 30-60 min to process postings, all I'm saying is that this is changing very quickly and the many people who have a machine with a turnaround time of 1 minute or less are going to base their habits on the speed of the machine they are using, and not on problems that may have existed a few years ago before they upgraded. Here is the kind of statistics you can expect with previous generation equipment: Total: 166,690 deliveries +--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+ | Average delivery time | Max delivery time | For... | +--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+ | 3 sec (00:03) | 8 sec (00:08) | First 50% | | 5 sec (00:05) | 13 sec (00:13) | First 60% | | 6 sec (00:06) | 21 sec (00:21) | First 70% | | 8 sec (00:08) | 26 sec (00:26) | First 80% | | 11 sec (00:11) | 35 sec (00:35) | First 90% | | 12 sec (00:12) | 55 sec (00:55) | First 95% | | 13 sec (00:13) | 72 sec (01:12) | First 96% | | 14 sec (00:14) | 130 sec (02:10) | First 97% | | 17 sec (00:17) | 785 sec (13:05) | First 98% | | 27 sec (00:27) | 1596 sec (26:36) | First 99% | | 216 sec (03:36) | 334125 sec (3d 20:48:45) | All (100%) | +--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+ As you can see, half of the messages were delivered in less than 8 seconds. The average delivery time, setting aside the usual 1% of addresses for brain-dead mail systems that support a grand total of one parallel connection or are up 2 hours a day, is 27 seconds. This turbo-charged super-server is a 133MHz Pentium with 64M and one drive. This machine also runs a web server from which people can browse the archives and make searches. There are 123 lists ranging from a handful of subscribers to 1,400 or so. It's far from being the largest mailing list site in the world, but it can probably handle the needs of 99.x% of existing mailing list sites, and it's really not much hardware at all. It's only a matter of time until most lists run on that kind of system. I give it a year, perhaps two. Eric From list-managers-owner Tue Aug 6 13:37:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA12152 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 13:35:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id NAA12076 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 13:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mne.ifi.uio.no (1232@mne.ifi.uio.no [129.240.70.5]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:35:02 +0200 From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by mne.ifi.uio.no ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:35:00 +0200 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:35:00 +0200 Message-Id: <199608062035.9089.mne.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: <199608061936.MAA02397@miles.greatcircle.com> (message from Eric Thomas on Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:06:42 +0200) Subject: Re: Reply from Compuserve Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [Kjetil T. Homme] | It's a feature, especially on large lists with long distribution | delays or digests. That way, a dialogue can have a quicker pace | than the mailing list host can maintain. [Eric Thomas] | Perhaps this made sense a few years ago (and it would still be a | matter of personal opinion), but we're in 1996. Today you can buy | a very fast Internet server for not much money at all. It still makes sense when one of the correspondents are on the digest. | [impressive statistics from a P133 elided] | | It's only a matter of time until most lists run on that kind of | system. I give it a year, perhaps two. A good portion of the mailing lists out there are based on Sendmail aliases, and I don't think that will change much. Speaking as a postmaster, I don't care if the lists I host take an hour until they reach the last recipient, and I won't install special software to fix it. Unless Sendmail sees some serious optimization regarding long recipient lists, you're too optimistic. Kjetil T. From list-managers-owner Tue Aug 6 13:43:36 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA10591 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 13:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from antares.mcs.anl.gov (mcs.anl.gov [140.221.9.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id NAA10564 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 13:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mcs.anl.gov (obie.mcs.anl.gov [140.221.5.129]) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10) with ESMTP id PAA05026; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 15:24:21 -0500 Message-Id: <199608062024.PAA05026@antares.mcs.anl.gov> To: Eric Thomas cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply from Compuserve In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 06 Aug 1996 21:06:42 +0200." <199608061936.MAA02397@miles.greatcircle.com> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 15:24:13 -0500 From: Gene Rackow Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric, You are correct, we are in 1996, but not all of the world is yet up to that level, nor can they afford to be. The biggest cost in the system is not the machine, but the size of the pipe you have to the outside world. Just as important is the speeds of the pipes you are attaching to. Nothing like having a fast link only to find that many of the remotes are running off of something really slow. You have missed a major consideration in your posting of the chart. That being what the distribution of your mail looks like. If all of the machines you are connecting to are also well connected, then the speeds and feeds are going to be reasonable. How many domains or mailhosts are you connecting to in your lists? If it's really just an internal company exploder, or mostly well connected edu and com sites than things are fast. If on the other hand your mailing list is made up of a couple thousand addresses covering about 100 top level domains and 1500 second level domains, then things are going to run alot slower than you proclaim. I know of a number of sites that are 9600 baud connections. Start filling those and not matter what speed machine you have, things are going to be slow. Chances are you also have your time limit set to the last entry in your table. The mail didn't really go though, but bounced. There are many machines that go down for 3 or 4 days at a shot. --Gene Eric Thomas made the following keystrokes: >On Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:06:37 +0200 Kjetil Torgrim Homme > said: > >>[James C. Armstrong] >> >>| The lists that I administer are intended for group discussions; by >>| concensus of the members we feel that Reply-To is the best >>| solution. Group replies, such as this message, result in some >>| folks receiving multiple copies, since all too often people do not >>| edit the To: line in headers >> >>It's a feature, especially on large lists with long distribution >>delays or digests. That way, a dialogue can have a quicker pace than >>the mailing list host can maintain. > >Perhaps this made sense a few years ago (and it would still be a matter >of personal opinion), but we're in 1996. Today you can buy a very fast >Internet server for not much money at all. Now I'm not saying that there >aren't many sites where the boss doesn't think upgrading the machines is >a good idea and where the mailing list host still needs 30-60 min to >process postings, all I'm saying is that this is changing very quickly >and the many people who have a machine with a turnaround time of 1 minute >or less are going to base their habits on the speed of the machine they >are using, and not on problems that may have existed a few years ago >before they upgraded. Here is the kind of statistics you can expect with >previous generation equipment: > >Total: 166,690 deliveries > >+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+ >| Average delivery time | Max delivery time | For... | >+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+ >| 3 sec (00:03) | 8 sec (00:08) | First 50% | >| 5 sec (00:05) | 13 sec (00:13) | First 60% | >| 6 sec (00:06) | 21 sec (00:21) | First 70% | >| 8 sec (00:08) | 26 sec (00:26) | First 80% | >| 11 sec (00:11) | 35 sec (00:35) | First 90% | >| 12 sec (00:12) | 55 sec (00:55) | First 95% | >| 13 sec (00:13) | 72 sec (01:12) | First 96% | >| 14 sec (00:14) | 130 sec (02:10) | First 97% | >| 17 sec (00:17) | 785 sec (13:05) | First 98% | >| 27 sec (00:27) | 1596 sec (26:36) | First 99% | >| 216 sec (03:36) | 334125 sec (3d 20:48:45) | All (100%) | >+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+ > >As you can see, half of the messages were delivered in less than 8 >seconds. The average delivery time, setting aside the usual 1% of >addresses for brain-dead mail systems that support a grand total of one >parallel connection or are up 2 hours a day, is 27 seconds. This >turbo-charged super-server is a 133MHz Pentium with 64M and one drive. >This machine also runs a web server from which people can browse the >archives and make searches. There are 123 lists ranging from a handful of >subscribers to 1,400 or so. It's far from being the largest mailing list >site in the world, but it can probably handle the needs of 99.x% of >existing mailing list sites, and it's really not much hardware at all. >It's only a matter of time until most lists run on that kind of system. I >give it a year, perhaps two. > > Eric > From list-managers-owner Tue Aug 6 14:38:46 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA20685 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 14:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sacmgr.mp.usbr.gov (sacmgr.mp.usbr.gov [140.214.12.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id OAA20676 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 14:29:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by sacto.mp.usbr.gov (MX V4.2 VAX) id 24; Tue, 06 Aug 1996 14:28:58 PDT Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 14:28:54 PDT From: "Henry W. Miller" To: kjetilho@ifi.uio.no CC: list-managers@greatcircle.com, henrym@sacto.mp.usbr.gov Message-ID: <009A672C.0F7765AE.24@sacto.mp.usbr.gov> Subject: Re: Reply from Compuserve Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: MX%"kjetilho@ifi.uio.no" 6-AUG-1996 13:41:27.89 > Subj: Re: Reply from Compuserve > [Kjetil T. Homme] > > | It's a feature, especially on large lists with long distribution > | delays or digests. That way, a dialogue can have a quicker pace > | than the mailing list host can maintain. > > [Eric Thomas] > > | Perhaps this made sense a few years ago (and it would still be a > | matter of personal opinion), but we're in 1996. Today you can buy > | a very fast Internet server for not much money at all. > > It still makes sense when one of the correspondents are on the digest. > > | [impressive statistics from a P133 elided] > | > | It's only a matter of time until most lists run on that kind of > | system. I give it a year, perhaps two. > > A good portion of the mailing lists out there are based on Sendmail > aliases, and I don't think that will change much. Speaking as a > postmaster, I don't care if the lists I host take an hour until they > reach the last recipient, and I won't install special software to fix > it. Unless Sendmail sees some serious optimization regarding long > recipient lists, you're too optimistic. > > > Kjetil T. I think that part of it needs to be user education and setting a reasonable expectation on the part of the subscribers. I run several mailing lists on a VAX cluster, running VMS (obviously) with a VAX 8350 and a MicroVAX II (Honest!) with the MX software. I have one major, high traffic list with well over 400 subscribers, all over the world. I tell my people that it can take up to 4 hours to process one message. In fact, when the moon has been in the right phase, and NONE of the receiving hosts are down, I've actually seen it process the entire list in under an hour. Granted, a 133 Mhz Pentium could stomp the snot out of the cluster for pure processing speed. Why list managers get grey, and why I'm going to have to dye my hair before I get a portrait taken: (I'm serious...) I had one (l)user on my lists, from South Africa, post a BS piece of tripe to a list three times within an hour. I asked him why. He responded that he had expected to see his message sent back to him, and because it wasn't echoed back within a few minutes, he sent it again, and again... EEEERRRRYYYYAAAHHHH!!!!! Have a good day, all, -HWM From list-managers-owner Tue Aug 6 16:07:46 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA03337 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 16:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from digital.netvoyage.net (digital.netvoyage.net [205.162.154.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id QAA03330 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 16:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (brozen@localhost) by digital.netvoyage.net (8.6.13/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA20538; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 15:59:44 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 15:59:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Brock Rozen Reply-To: Brock Rozen To: Eric Thomas cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply from Compuserve In-Reply-To: <199608061936.MAA02397@miles.greatcircle.com> Message-ID: X-URL: http://www.netvoyage.net/~brozen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Eric Thomas wrote: > Total: 166,690 deliveries > > +--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+ > | Average delivery time | Max delivery time | For... | > +--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+ > | 3 sec (00:03) | 8 sec (00:08) | First 50% | > | 5 sec (00:05) | 13 sec (00:13) | First 60% | > | 6 sec (00:06) | 21 sec (00:21) | First 70% | > | 8 sec (00:08) | 26 sec (00:26) | First 80% | > | 11 sec (00:11) | 35 sec (00:35) | First 90% | > | 12 sec (00:12) | 55 sec (00:55) | First 95% | > | 13 sec (00:13) | 72 sec (01:12) | First 96% | > | 14 sec (00:14) | 130 sec (02:10) | First 97% | > | 17 sec (00:17) | 785 sec (13:05) | First 98% | > | 27 sec (00:27) | 1596 sec (26:36) | First 99% | > | 216 sec (03:36) | 334125 sec (3d 20:48:45) | All (100%) | > +--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+ Wow, that's pretty amazing. I manage 13 lists and our biggest one with about 7500 subscribers can take a few hours to process, toss and send. Are the times above after all the processing has taken place? Internal addresses? We have two T1 lines and send out to 7500+ subscribers, around the world (almost every country on the net). There's simply no way we could connect to every system and not use up all our bandwidth. In fact, I think my system is the average (we just bought our system for about $10k). GreatCircle can take an hour or so to send to all the members on it's various lists (majordomo-workers, users, etc). In fact, most of the lists I'm on take around that time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Brock Rozen | brozen@netvoyage.net | http://www.netvoyage.net/~brozen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Tue Aug 6 17:38:13 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA12003 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cantec.com ([206.31.250.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id RAA11962 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608070028.RAA11962@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from www by cantec.com with SMTP (IPAD 1.1e) id 4476700 ; Tue, 06 Aug 96 20:29:04 UTC X-Sender: dbigham@cantec.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Dave Bigham Subject: Re: Reply from Compuserve Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 09:06 PM 8/6/96 +0200, you wrote: >On Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:06:37 +0200 Kjetil Torgrim Homme > said: >>Here is the kind of statistics you can expect with >previous generation equipment: > >Total: 166,690 deliveries > >+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+ >| Average delivery time | Max delivery time | For... | >+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+ >| 3 sec (00:03) | 8 sec (00:08) | First 50% | >| 5 sec (00:05) | 13 sec (00:13) | First 60% | >| 6 sec (00:06) | 21 sec (00:21) | First 70% | >| 8 sec (00:08) | 26 sec (00:26) | First 80% | >| 11 sec (00:11) | 35 sec (00:35) | First 90% | >| 12 sec (00:12) | 55 sec (00:55) | First 95% | >| 13 sec (00:13) | 72 sec (01:12) | First 96% | >| 14 sec (00:14) | 130 sec (02:10) | First 97% | >| 17 sec (00:17) | 785 sec (13:05) | First 98% | >| 27 sec (00:27) | 1596 sec (26:36) | First 99% | >| 216 sec (03:36) | 334125 sec (3d 20:48:45) | All (100%) | >+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+ > >As you can see, half of the messages were delivered in less than 8 >seconds. The average delivery time, setting aside the usual 1% of >addresses for brain-dead mail systems that support a grand total of one >parallel connection or are up 2 hours a day, is 27 seconds. This >turbo-charged super-server is a 133MHz Pentium with 64M and one drive. >This machine also runs a web server from which people can browse the >archives and make searches. There are 123 lists ranging from a handful of >subscribers to 1,400 or so. It's far from being the largest mailing list >site in the world, but it can probably handle the needs of 99.x% of >existing mailing list sites, and it's really not much hardware at all. >It's only a matter of time until most lists run on that kind of system. I >give it a year, perhaps two. > > Eric > Eric, I think it is important to note that the above statistics are individual statistics for all of the 166,000+ messages sent from all of the lists. They are not from one list at one time. So, for example, *each one* of the fastest 50% took 8 seconds to send - each. Thats more that 664,000 message-seconds, if that makes any sense. It's not a case of 80,000+ messages being sent in 8 seconds or less. I'm probably stupid, but that's what I re