From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 1 11:59:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA12251; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 11:51:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from polaris.azstarnet.com (polaris.azstarnet.com [169.197.1.7]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id LAA12222 for ; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 11:51:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from Pbish (dialup20ip35.tus.azstarnet.com [169.197.39.163]) by polaris.azstarnet.com (8.8.5-nerd/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA06058 for ; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 12:50:36 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199801011950.MAA06058@polaris.azstarnet.com> X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ From: "Bob Bish" Organization: http://www.humvee.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 12:50:35 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: address forwarding Reply-to: bish@azstarnet.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have an address bouncing that doesn't appear on the list. I suspect it's someone using a forwarding service. This happened once before and it took me 3 weeks of sending test messages to list addresses until one bounced the same way as the culprit. The problem this time is that this address is bouncing with one of those "could not deliver for 1 week and 1 day" messages. If I try to send test messages in this case, I'd have to wait 8 days on each one to see if it bounces. Any suggestion for weeding out the culprit address? ...Bob http://www.humvee.com From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 1 12:29:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA14498; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 12:20:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from quilla.tezcat.com (quilla.tezcat.com [204.128.247.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA14489 for ; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 12:20:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [206.230.56.44] (adamb.tezcat.com [206.230.56.44]) by quilla.tezcat.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/tezcat-96091001) with SMTP id OAA24034 for ; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 14:19:32 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199801012019.OAA24034@quilla.tezcat.com> Subject: Re: address forwarding Date: Thu, 1 Jan 98 14:19:39 -0600 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v2, June 6, 1997 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 1/1/98 6:50 AM, Bob Bish wrote... > Any suggestion for weeding out the culprit address? Assuming your system gives you the headers of the message that bounced, look at those to see any intervening systems that the message passed through between you and the address that's bouncing. Then search your list for that domain. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| "Do not take life too seriously; adamb@tezcat.com | you will never get out of it alive." adamkb@aol.com | - Elbert Hubbard Finger for PGP | http://www.tezcat.com/~adamb From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 1 12:44:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA15423; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 12:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from polaris.azstarnet.com (polaris.azstarnet.com [169.197.1.7]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA15411 for ; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 12:39:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from Pbish (dialup20ip35.tus.azstarnet.com [169.197.39.163]) by polaris.azstarnet.com (8.8.5-nerd/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA17460 for ; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 13:39:26 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199801012039.NAA17460@polaris.azstarnet.com> X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ From: "Bob Bish" Organization: http://www.humvee.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 13:39:26 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: address forwarding/found it! Reply-to: bish@azstarnet.com In-reply-to: <199801012019.OAA24034@quilla.tezcat.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > Any suggestion for weeding out the culprit address? I found it through http://www.netforward.com. It was an alias someone had set up through this service. Fortunately, there's a feature with which one can search on the alias address and come up with the real one. ...Bob From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 1 16:14:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA28573; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 16:14:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from sky.net (solar.sky.net [209.90.0.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id QAA28546 for ; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 16:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from sky.net.sky.net (ts-3-ip61.kc.sky.net [209.90.4.253]) by sky.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA09131 for ; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 18:13:27 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980101181236.00800970@solar.sky.net> X-Sender: price@solar.sky.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 18:12:36 -0600 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Paul Allen Rice Subject: Question about (Message status - opened) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This kinda goes along with the vacation message problem we sometimes seem to have on lists. How should I handle stuff like this.... >From: Mailer-Daemon@unicorn.co.za >To: owner-circlejoke@UserHome.com >Subject: Message status - opened> > >The message that you sent was opened by the following: > wanderso >Information about your message: > Subject: Welcome to circlejoke > Message-Id: <199712230652.XAA00801@userhome.com> My list doesn't generate a lot of messages every day as its a one way joke list, but it does generate a heckuva lot of bounces. Caught up in all this mess are these "Hey, I got your message replies" from several members. Does anyone know what turns this off to bulk mail messages so I wouldn't get these from the list messages, but other people with "regular" mail would? I'd like to have a prepared message to send to these people telling them how to do it, and if it's not done in x-amount of time they'll be dropped from the list. What software is it that does this? Seems like I see Groupwise sometimes associated with these little annoyances. Thanks for any suggestions or ideas. Paul ------------------------------------------------------------ (o)(o) Paul Allen Rice > Listowner: CircleJoke and Underground Mailing Lists \/ Homepage: ------------------------------------------------------------ "We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." --Robert Wilensky, University of California ------------------------------------------------------------ Support the anti-Spam amendment, go to http://www.cauce.org ------------------------------------------------------------ From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 1 17:29:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA01581; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 17:22:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id RAA01562 for ; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 17:22:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA10634 ; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 17:23:35 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980101181236.00800970@solar.sky.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 17:21:26 -0800 To: Paul Allen Rice , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Question about (Message status - opened) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 4:12 PM -0800 1/1/98, Paul Allen Rice wrote: > This kinda goes along with the vacation message problem we sometimes >seem to have on lists. > > How should I handle stuff like this.... > >The message that you sent was opened by the following: > > wanderso > >Information about your message: > > Subject: Welcome to circlejoke > > Message-Id: <199712230652.XAA00801@userhome.com> This one is, if I remember correctly, the Lotus mail server. Lotus, in its infinite wisdom, made this a SERVER configured option, not an end-user. So you go to that user, tell him to tell his admin to turn it off, or he'll be removed from the mail list. Works 99% of the time, because I've found most of the time, the *admin* didn't even know it was turned on. Every once in a while I used to run into an admin that told me to sit on it, and I removed his users from the list. (shrug). Or you can do what I do now: I have a procmail front end that looks for these and devnulls them. They're easy to trap, easy to throw away. That way, I never see them, and I don't have to care how the client's software is configured and go through the hassle of trying to get it fixed. I don't particularly like getting whapped by dozens of autobot messages. I chose simply to set my system up to trash them. The alternative is working with the user to make them go away. Both work. It depends on which you feel is more appropriate. This just wasn't the kind of issue I felt was worth putting time into, since I don't really care if they devnull the response or if I do it. The overhead of the responses as far as system overhead and bandwidth just aren't significant, and fixing stuff like this takes time. -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 1 19:59:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA07961; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 19:48:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV (cvobku.cvo.mp.usbr.gov [140.214.189.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id TAA07954 for ; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 19:48:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV (MX J5.0) id 95; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 19:47:41 -0800 Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 19:47:41 -0800 From: "Henry W. Miller" To: bish@azstarnet.com CC: list-managers@greatcircle.com, henrym@SACTO.MP.USBR.GOV Message-ID: <009BFA76.95B78D54.95@CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV> Subject: RE: address forwarding Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: MX%"bish@azstarnet.com" 1-JAN-1998 19:24:21.40 > To: MX%"list-managers@greatcircle.com" > CC: > Subj: address forwarding > On Thu, 1 Jan 1998 12:50:35 +0000, "Bob Bish" said: "Bob Bish" writes: > I have an address bouncing that doesn't appear on the list. I suspect it's > someone using a forwarding service. This happened once before and it took me 3 > weeks of sending test messages to list addresses until one bounced the same way > as the culprit. > The problem this time is that this address is bouncing with one of those > "could not deliver for 1 week and 1 day" messages. If I try to send test > messages in this case, I'd have to wait 8 days on each one to see if it > bounces. > Any suggestion for weeding out the culprit address? > > ...Bob > http://www.humvee.com > Bob, I would suggest looking at the address that you are receiving back as a bounce, and compare the user name to those addresses on the list in question, looking for something similar. That may help narrow it down. Good hunting, -HWM From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 5 02:29:41 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id CAA07547; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 02:15:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from onyx.msis.metu.edu.tr (onyx.msis.metu.edu.tr [144.122.201.7]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id CAA07231 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 02:14:03 -0800 (PST) From: msislist@onyx.msis.metu.edu.tr Received: from localhost (msislist@localhost) by onyx.msis.metu.edu.tr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA15591 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:13:26 +0200 Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:13:26 +0200 (EET) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: error in majordomo.pl Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, it says that there is an error at majordomo.pl on this line. 1 while $temp =~ s/(^|([^\\\"]|\\.)+)\"([^\\\"]|\\.|$)*\"?/$1/g; can someone help me From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 9 02:55:01 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id CAA26414; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 02:26:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from voland.freenet.bishkek.su (voland.freenet.bishkek.su [193.125.230.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id CAA25240 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 02:18:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from freenet.bishkek.su (fygrave@freenet.bishkek.su [193.125.230.1]) by voland.freenet.bishkek.su (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA26914 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:06:29 +0500 Received: from localhost (fygrave@localhost) by freenet.bishkek.su (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA32245 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:25:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:25:04 -0500 (GMT+5) From: Fyodor Reply-To: fygrave@usa.net To: List Managers Subject: List software Message-ID: X-lummer: Bill Gates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hello People, I am thinking of installing some lists to test them on my host, i wonder, what free avaliable software you could you advice? i have the feeling that some majordomo packages are of good use, but which ones? and where could i download them? Thanks beforehands Fyodor From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 9 18:01:55 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA24427; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 17:58:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from andromeda.ndirect.co.uk (andromeda.ndirect.co.uk [194.74.254.17]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id RAA24400 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 17:58:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from pm0-25.ndirect.co.uk (pm0-25.ndirect.co.uk [195.99.165.36]) by andromeda.ndirect.co.uk (8.8.5/8.6.6) with SMTP id BAA14872 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 01:59:31 GMT From: merlin@netlink.co.uk (Darren Wyn Rees) To: List Managers Subject: Tracing the ISP of (a Particularly Hideous) Subscriber Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 01:57:51 GMT Message-ID: <34d5d3a8.29456674@mail.ndirect.co.uk> X-Meddwe: Gwefus Gwenno MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have a problem that mainly concerns a small 'culture' list I manage (VALLEYS-L, on the South Wales Valleys). Here's a synopsis of the situation, roughly in chronological order : * I received some pretty vicious materials by email (main themes of abuse : references to drugs, blood, religion, and lots of psychobabble) a month and a half ago. The emails was in response to a message I posted to another list (where I'm a subscriber) and I'm in the process of contacting that lists owners to explain the situation. (I'm not sure of the other list manager's obligations in this respect?) * The abuser sends a message with sicko imagery... this time _to_ the list. [Thank God] I was experimenting with the list at the time and it was only open to subscribers to post... His message was bounced. * I do not respond to a single one of his messages, so he takes his abuse elsewhere : * A list-post of mine is sent to a newsgroup. This was no big deal . However, he has also posted a lot of Usenet posts in the same newsgroup that are quite libellous/provocative. This may affect people's perception of the list (see below, for why it's difficult to respond to this critic) in the long term... If people perceive that there's a nutter loose on a list, then I do not think they would wish to join. * I started getting v-e-r-y paranoid (this guy makes subtle references that suggest he has done some research) changing passwords on accounts, checking all logs in detail from past emails. I discover that the Abuser joined a list (it lasted 2 months, but fulfilled its role) I was involved in early Summer, 1997... his email message to me gives me a 'lead' : The originating IP Address comes from the Web Proxy Server of the biggest British ISP, Demon. Could it be spoofed/faked... I don't know, I have no idea how clever this time-waster is, and it's too damned technical for me. * He uses a Hotmail Com email address. All his messages (except the one from Demon) have this "X-Originating-IP: [209.75.196.2]" on it, or variants on that. A DNS reverse lookup gives "sol.infonex.com" and that suggests the http://www.anonymizer.com. They're sent via myriad.alias.net, when they go to Usenet. * Contacted Hotmail Com but they've been soooo reluctant to do anything... giving me some rubbish about "you didn't send all the Path headers in your email to abuse@hotmail.com" which was not true as I quoted every single iota of mail received from the Hotmail Customer. * Contacted Demon Net Ltd... but they deny that this is from their Customer. Highly convenient for them, I daresay. * I've used 'he' and 'guy' as I'm almost certain this is a male. Managing my list, my main worres are that the Abuser (i) could do the same thing to other people on my list with possible legal repercussions for myself (see iii); (ii) worryingly, has done this type of thing before but now is going a little more 'professional' (experimenting with a simple web/'anon' interface for a Hotmail account; (iii) the VALLEYS-L list is small, in its infancy, and this guy could really kill any growth potential; (iv) time wasted dealing with this pest could be better spent experimenting with a Majordomo/Linux platform to move my list to. If this post is off-topic, or too long here then please accept my sincere apologies. I've read nearly _all_ the archives, especially with interest the bits about methods/stategies of catching people who re-post list material to Usenet et. al. I really haven't got a clue where to start on this problem, so _any_ help would be gratefully appreciated. If you want precise details though, I would rather that be by email. At this stage, if I could prove that this guy is posting from Demon Net Ltd., then the problem is solved because he's broken their Acceptable Usage Policy and his account is terminated. Sincerely, -- Darren Rees mailto:merlin@netlink.co.uk From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 9 22:46:54 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA01717; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:07:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA01638 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:07:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.8.8/8.8.BEST) id VAA21038; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:08:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:08:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199801100508.VAA21038@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: merlin@netlink.co.uk CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@shell7.ba.best.com In-reply-to: <34d5d3a8.29456674@mail.ndirect.co.uk> (merlin@netlink.co.uk) Subject: Re: Tracing the ISP of (a Particularly Hideous) Subscriber Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Darren. This is totally the proper place to discuss this sort of thing. I'm glad too to get away from the tech geek talk (no offence!) I can't help you trace the ISP, that's not my area. But I can tell you I've been there. Some people get kicks out of bringing down lists or harressing people. Sounds like you're doing the right things. You have removed this jerk from your list, yes? And I do think you should talk to the other list owner and present your case. The ISP's might take you more seriously if they get more than one complaint about the person. Good luck, Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@best.com __________________________________________________ http://www.best.com/~cnorman From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 10 08:31:50 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA26602; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:23:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA26577 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:23:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA07015; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:24:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA13873; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:24:59 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:24:58 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Darren Wyn Rees cc: List Managers Subject: Re: Tracing the ISP of (a Particularly Hideous) Subscriber In-Reply-To: <34d5d3a8.29456674@mail.ndirect.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I can't offer a great solution for tracing your culprit. I will note that Listproc 6.0c does keep a log of all posts and commands which has full headers intact. There may be other mailing list servers programs which also keep complete records. Complete headers can be helpful in tracing. There were some posts to the list-manager list complaining about the lack of complete logs with Majordomo. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to track down someone who is determined not to be found. I would ask for assistance from your local sysadmin. Sysadmins and postmasters have access to logs and tools not usually available to the average user. Postmasters are more likley to respond to a compliant form another postmaster than to a complaint from a random user. If you have a serious problem, your local sys admins are the place to start. Regarding his slanderous posts to other forums, I would not worry too much about him killing off the list. Those who are already subscribed to your list know better than to believe his lies. When he posts to other forums, I would post a very terse disclaimer stating that the fellow is not and has never been subscribed to your mailing list, and does not represent your mailing list in any way. If his posts are as strange as you have described, no one will pay any attention to him. Detailed rebutals of each issue raised by a person of questionable sanity, often doesn't read well on the net. Keep the rebuttal very short and very dry. - murr - From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 15 17:03:29 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA13458; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:54:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.unidial.com (unidial.com [206.112.0.9]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id QAA13424 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:54:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from unidial.com (1Cust199.tnt27.chi5.da.uu.net [208.255.17.199]) by mail.unidial.com (8.8.7/ntr.net 3.0.0) with ESMTP id AAA03429; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:55:57 GMT Message-ID: <34BEB002.4FE34A06@unidial.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 19:55:30 -0500 From: Merrill Cook X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Outlook 98 beta Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I just loaded the Outlook 98 beta. I noticed something that looks kinda odd: When I reply to a note that has a "Sender" (header) that is different from the "From:" header, Outlook is including BOTH the sender and the >From address in the reply. Don't most list management packages use "list-owner" for the Sender? Won't this default behavior be pretty nasty to the list-owners who will now get two copies of each message? Is there any way to get a loud message to Microsoft to stop doing it this way, or at least to make it a configurable option that is turned off by default (so a simple reply goes only to the "From:" field, not the "sender"). From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 15 17:33:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA17364; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:23:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.18.24]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id RAA17355 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:23:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [137.78.144.194] (lemond.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.144.194]) by eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA28563 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:24:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:27:09 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Kyle Subject: Win95 list software Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I thought I saw some list software for Win95 listed here that was freeware, but I didn't save the message nor do I know where the archives are for the list to look through them. Would anyone happen to have the list software names and/or locations to get it? Thanks. Kyle From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 15 17:47:41 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA17818; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:28:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from baygate.bayarea.net (baygate.bayarea.net [204.71.212.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id RAA17811 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:28:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dcrocker@localhost) by baygate.bayarea.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA18106; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:32:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: X-Sender: dcrocker@mail.bayarea.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Release Candidate 3 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:20:48 -0500 To: Merrill Cook From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Outlook 98 beta Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <34BEB002.4FE34A06@unidial.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 07:55 PM 1/15/98 -0500, Merrill Cook wrote: >from the "From:" header, Outlook is including BOTH the sender and the >>From address in the reply. > >Won't this default behavior be pretty nasty to the list-owners who will the behavior is quite illegal. Sender is not to be used for formulating replies. I've sent a note to a relevant MS person. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 16 07:05:43 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA13607; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 07:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from revnet1.revnet.com (revnet1.revnet.com [198.51.35.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id HAA13538 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 07:00:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from majestic.revnet.com (majestic.revnet.com [198.51.35.45]) by revnet1.revnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA11790; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:08:09 -0600 Message-Id: <199801161508.JAA11790@revnet1.revnet.com> X-Sender: mmead@revnet1.revnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:57:36 -0600 To: Kyle , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Marc Mead Subject: Re: Win95 list software In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk GroupMaster http://www.groupmaster.com list server for Windows 95 and NT. Once installed, it's managed remotely from your browser on any platform, anywhere. Not exactly freeware, but free eval versions are available at the site. Marc Mead Revnet Systems http://www.revnet.com At 05:27 PM 1/15/98 -0800, Kyle wrote: >I thought I saw some list software for Win95 listed here that was freeware, >but I didn't save the message nor do I know where the archives are for the >list to look through them. Would anyone happen to have the list software >names and/or locations to get it? Thanks. > > > >Kyle > From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 16 18:49:35 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA20248; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 17:49:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id RAA20132 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 17:48:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from anago.wwa.com (anago.wwa.com [198.49.174.54]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id LAA28806 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 11:07:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by anago.wwa.com via sendmail with stdio id for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:08:15 -0600 (CST) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #88 built 1997-Nov-30) Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: new worldnet NDN error To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:08:15 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Try this one on as a reason for bouncing mail back: "The user message store is inactive." That came from the good folks at worldnet.att.com. What language do they speak? From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 16 18:54:24 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA23309; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id SAA23249 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:11:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id UAA20195 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 20:13:52 -0600 (CST) Received: from sdx-ca8-24.ix.netcom.com(204.30.72.88) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020175; Fri Jan 16 20:13:45 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980116181516.00e1ce60@adnc.com> X-Sender: mtrip@adnc.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:15:16 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Mike Tripp Subject: Re: Win95 list software Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:27 PM 1/15/98 -0800, you wrote: >I thought I saw some list software for Win95 listed here that was freeware, >but I didn't save the message nor do I know where the archives are for the >list to look through them. Would anyone happen to have the list software >names and/or locations to get it? Thanks. Kyle, You can find searchable archives for the list-managers list at http://www.list-archives.com/cgi-bin/miva?list/list-managers. Mike mike@list-archives.com *********** SEARCHABLE Web-Based List Archives customized to compliment your website, not ours. Are you wasting the value of your list content by not offering message searches? Use your archive as a revenue stream without commercializing your list. Completely automatic - no work for list manager or owner. http://www.list-archives.com From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 16 19:39:21 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA02736; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:01:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay1.shore.net (relay1.shore.net [192.233.85.129]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id TAA02590 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:01:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from jane.smoe.org (jeffw@smoe.org [204.167.97.154]) by relay1.shore.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA27272; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:03:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jeffw@localhost) by jane.smoe.org (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4-daemon-mode-relay2) id WAA12465; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:05:11 -0500 Message-ID: <19980116220510.02649@smoe.org> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:05:10 -0500 From: Jeff Wasilko To: "David W. Tamkin" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: new worldnet NDN error References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.76 In-Reply-To: ; from "David W. Tamkin" on Sun, Jan 11, 1998 at 01:08:15PM -0600 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, Jan 11, 1998 at 01:08:15PM -0600, David W. Tamkin wrote: > Try this one on as a reason for bouncing mail back: > > "The user message store is inactive." > > That came from the good folks at worldnet.att.com. What language do they > speak? Technoenglish. Worldnet uses Software.com's InterMail. InterMail stores users mail in database called the 'message store'. It sounds like they're having some problems with it... -Jeff From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 16 20:35:15 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA10846; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.wasatch.com (ns.wasatch.com [204.99.129.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id TAA10823 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:52:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from LOCALNAME (209.63.78.34) by mail.wasatch.com with smtp (Linux Smail3.2.0.94 #1) id m0xtPL1-000bJDC; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 20:54:27 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <34C03845.6778@wasatch.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 20:49:09 -0800 From: "W. David Samuelsen" Reply-To: dsam@wasatch.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David W. Tamkin" CC: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: new worldnet NDN error References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk David W. Tamkin wrote: > > Try this one on as a reason for bouncing mail back: > > "The user message store is inactive." > > That came from the good folks at worldnet.att.com. What language do they > speak? worldnet.att.net (not .com) is telling you that the subscriber had changed his isp. The name of person is given in the bounce message. I get those bounces all the times when the subscribers changed isps and forgot to unsubscribe from the lists using old address. W. David Samuelsen From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 17 07:48:03 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA11729; Sat, 17 Jan 1998 07:38:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.166]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id HAA11712 for ; Sat, 17 Jan 1998 07:38:07 -0800 (PST) From: ZYLPH Message-ID: <6637c6a5.34c0d0e7@aol.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 10:40:21 EST To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V7 #7 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I've been learning and using Pegasus Mail, a free, downloadable Mail Server. Having great success with it. It even offers a way to set up practically unlimited autoresponders. I use it to administer a small monthly digest list. It's a great program, very rich. Their URL escapes me. I suggest starting with: http://www.Pegasus.com Simon Zylph TableTips Internet Marketing http://www.TableTips.com In a message dated 98-01-17 04:22:30 EST, you write: > > At 05:27 PM 1/15/98 -0800, Kyle wrote: > >I thought I saw some list software for Win95 listed here that was freeware, > >but I didn't save the message nor do I know where the archives are for the > >list to look through them. Would anyone happen to have the list software > >names and/or locations to get it? Thanks. From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 17 09:48:03 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA21718; Sat, 17 Jan 1998 09:46:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id JAA21700 for ; Sat, 17 Jan 1998 09:46:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA24218 ; Sat, 17 Jan 1998 09:50:28 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980116220510.02649@smoe.org> References: ; from "David W. Tamkin" on Sun, Jan 11, 1998 at 01:08:15PM -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 09:47:29 -0800 To: Jeff Wasilko , "David W. Tamkin" From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: new worldnet NDN error Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 7:05 PM -0800 1/16/98, Jeff Wasilko wrote: > > "The user message store is inactive." > Worldnet uses Software.com's InterMail. InterMail stores users > mail in database called the 'message store'. It sounds like > they're having some problems with it... Nope. The account has been turned off. -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 17 18:33:07 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA07183; Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:21:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from andromeda.ndirect.co.uk (andromeda.ndirect.co.uk [194.74.254.17]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id SAA07101 for ; Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:20:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from pm0-03.ndirect.co.uk (pm0-03.ndirect.co.uk [195.99.165.14]) by andromeda.ndirect.co.uk (8.8.5/8.6.6) with SMTP id CAA30973 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 02:23:06 GMT From: merlin@netlink.co.uk (Darren Wyn Rees) To: List Managers Subject: Re: Tracing the ISP of (a Particularly Hideous) Subscriber Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 02:21:30 GMT Reply-To: merlin@netlink.co.uk X-PGP-Key: http://pgp.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=diffreithiant Message-ID: <34cf58e3.10100784@mail.ndirect.co.uk> X-Meddwe: Gwefus Gwenno MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Thanks to all who helped with my question; although I haven't traced the=20 ISP in question, the Hotmail account has been terminated, and Usenet fwd.'ing has stopped. --- What I've .learned. from this curve, is to *be prepared* (I forgot my Cub Scout's motto), and to be aware of a simple = plan of action if it crops up again. Cheers, -- Darren Wyn Rees mailto:merlin@netlink.co.uk =20 From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 18 04:48:14 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id EAA27020; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 04:37:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from renoir.op.net (renoir.op.net [209.152.193.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id EAA27005 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 04:37:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from d-phletc1-1a.ppp.op.net (d-phletc1-1a.ppp.op.net [209.152.198.90]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.14 $) with SMTP id HAA29636 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 07:39:59 -0500 (EST) From: kobak@Op.Net (Peter Kobak) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: being a good citizen Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:47:08 GMT Message-ID: <34c3f67c.1959750@mail.op.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm introducing email distribution of customized information for customers of a large financial institution. The customer will always explicitly choose to receive these emails. By the end of this year, we predict sending an average of around 20k messages per day, with peaks of up to 120k messages in a single day, and up to 70k messages in one chunk. How should I go about warning receiving ISPs about this volume? I want to be a good internet citizen, and I also want to avoid having our legitimate emails being treated as spam because of volume alone. We've got the advantage of already having a database of email addresses of current customers, so we can make a pretty good prediction of the volume to be going to larger ISPs. (Not surprisingly, AOL is by far the largest single ISP.) Along the same lines, are there any rules of thumb about maximum messages per unit time and/or the maximum polite hold time for an ISP's email port? =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Peter Kobak kobak@op.net From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 18 05:48:09 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id FAA02326; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 05:43:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from java.aboard.co.uk ([193.164.182.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id FAA02319 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 05:43:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nick@localhost) by java.aboard.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.7) id NAA27910; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:45:34 GMT From: Nick Perry Message-ID: <19980118134532.26338@amulation.co.uk> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:45:32 +0000 To: Peter Kobak , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: being a good citizen References: <34c3f67c.1959750@mail.op.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 In-Reply-To: <34c3f67c.1959750@mail.op.net>; from Peter Kobak on Sun, Jan 18, 1998 at 12:47:08PM +0000 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, Jan 18, 1998 at 12:47:08PM +0000, Peter Kobak wrote: > predict sending an average of around 20k messages per day, with peaks > of up to 120k messages in a single day, and up to 70k messages in one > chunk. > ...current customers, so we can make a pretty good prediction of the > volume to be going to larger ISPs. (Not surprisingly, AOL is by far > the largest single ISP.) Presumably, you expect to be sending (in the 20k example), say, 20 messages to 1000 people or 1 message to 20000 people rather than the other extreme of 20000 messages to 1 person. If so, then a mailing list that operates along the lines of majordomo & sendmail will have a far smaller impact than you might imagine. Sending a single 50k email message to 1000 AOL subscribers, for instance, will result in only one 50k message plus a list of 1000 addresses being sent to the AOL MTA, rather than 1000 50k messages each with one address. If this is the case, then the sort of figures you are talking about are quite normal and shouldn't cause too many problems. Nick -- Nick Perry | Home / Recreation | Work - AboarD | | LONDON SW1, UK | LONDON SW6, UK | | http://www.amulation.co.uk/nick | http://www.aboard.co.uk | | nick.perry@amulation.co.uk | np@aboard.co.uk | From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 18 07:04:33 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA11384; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 06:48:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from renoir.op.net (renoir.op.net [209.152.193.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id GAA11359 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 06:47:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from d-phletc1-1a.ppp.op.net (d-phletc1-1a.ppp.op.net [209.152.198.90]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.14 $) with SMTP id JAA02519; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 09:49:49 -0500 (EST) From: kobak@Op.Net (Peter Kobak) To: Nick Perry , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: being a good citizen Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:56:59 GMT Message-ID: <34c612f9.9253265@mail.op.net> References: <34c3f67c.1959750@mail.op.net> <19980118134532.26338@amulation.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <19980118134532.26338@amulation.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:45:32 +0000, you wrote: >Presumably, you expect to be sending (in the 20k example), say, 20 >messages to 1000 people or 1 message to 20000 people rather than the >other extreme of 20000 messages to 1 person. =20 Neither; we will be sending different messages to each of 20000 persons. Even when the text of messages would be otherwise identical, we need to include a unique identifier for tracking purposes and for automated handling of bounced messages. The customer database which contain the email addresses is the primary store. That is, two individuals in the database may use the same email address; message delivery options specified for two users are separate even if using the same address. This is a relatively common occupance when two customers in the same household have separate financial accounts. >If so, then a mailing list >that operates along the lines of majordomo & sendmail will have a far >smaller impact than you might imagine. Sending a single 50k email >message to 1000 AOL subscribers, for instance, will result in only one >50k message plus a list of 1000 addresses being sent to the AOL MTA, >rather than 1000 50k messages each with one address. I presume I couldn't count on this small impact when sending different messages. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Peter Kobak kobak@op.net From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 19 00:18:34 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA27378; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:06:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id AAA27362 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:06:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from stl-17lssc (STL-17LSSC.ARMY.MIL [150.211.90.52]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id IAA25676 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:22:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199801141622.IAA25676@honor.greatcircle.com> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.new-list Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:25:58 CST Reply-To: Eric Scheid From: Eric Scheid Subject: NEW: List-Moderators To: NEW-LIST@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk List-Moderators on requests@lists.ironclad.net.au List-Moderators is an open, unmoderated discussion list for the benefit of list-moderators. It is a gathering place for list-moderators to share their experiences and wisdom, and for newly appointed list-moderators to learn the trade. Discussions which would be on topic include techniques and tools to assist moderation, how to deal with troublesome posters, encouraging a particular list culture without appearing too authoritarian, how to spot posters attempting to use and abuse the system, text-layout styles for newsletters, etc. It is unlikely this list will ever be moderated ;-) To subscribe, send an email to requests@lists.ironclad.net.au with SUBSCRIBE LIST-MODERATORS as the body of the message. To subscribe to the digest, send an email to requests@lists.ironclad.net.au with SUBSCRIBE DIGEST LIST-MODERATORS as the body of the message. Owner: Eric Scheid ------- Use this information at your own risk. For more information and disclaimer send E-mail to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU with the command INFO NEW-LIST in the body. URL: http://LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU/archives/new-list.html From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 19 00:22:44 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA28759; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:17:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id AAA28751 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:17:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ligarius-fe0.ultra.net (ligarius-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.189]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id TAA10347 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 19:50:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d22.dial-2.wal.ma.ultra.net [146.115.77.54]) by ligarius-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult.n14767) with SMTP id WAA30147 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:52:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980116035336.007219d4@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:53:36 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: Outlook 98 beta Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 07:55 PM 1/15/98 -0500, Merrill Cook wrote: >I just loaded the Outlook 98 beta. I noticed something that looks kinda >odd: > >When I reply to a note that has a "Sender" (header) that is different >from the "From:" header, Outlook is including BOTH the sender and the >>From address in the reply. > >Don't most list management packages use "list-owner" for the Sender? >Won't this default behavior be pretty nasty to the list-owners who will >now get two copies of each message? > >Is there any way to get a loud message to Microsoft to stop doing it >this way, or at least to make it a configurable option that is turned >off by default (so a simple reply goes only to the "From:" field, not >the "sender"). Well, you could always *TRY* blasting the following from RFC822 at them, noting the capitalized NEVER in the second bullet item. However, Microsoft is not famous for listening, nor for obeying standards other than its own. (I'm not sure how you figure the two copies to list-owners, though; the From: header is generally the poster of the message. Are you sure that Reply-To isn't somehow involved in what you see?) Stan. (RFC822 excerpt:) 4.4.4. AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO For systems which automatically generate address lists for replies to messages, the following recommendations are made: o The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of any problems in transport or delivery of the original messages. If there is no "Sender" field, then the "From" field mailbox should be used. o The "Sender" field mailbox should NEVER be used automatically, in a recipient's reply message. o If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to the address(es) indicated in the "From" field. o If there is a "From" field, but no "Reply-To" field, the reply should be sent to the address(es) indicated in the "From" field. Sometimes, a recipient may actually wish to communicate with the person that initiated the message transfer. In such cases, it is reasonable to use the "Sender" address. This recommendation is intended only for automated use of originator-fields and is not intended to suggest that replies may not also be sent to other recipients of messages. It is up to the respective mail-handling programs to decide what additional facilities will be provided. From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 19 02:06:01 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA06541; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 01:15:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id BAA05319 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 01:03:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from miso.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id KAA24604 for ; Sat, 17 Jan 1998 10:16:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by miso.wwa.com via sendmail with stdio id for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 17 Jan 1998 12:19:08 -0600 (CST) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #12 built 1997-Nov-30) Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: Re: new worldnet NDN error To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 12:19:08 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Chuq Von Rospach" at Jan 17, 98 09:47:29 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 | > > "The user message store is inactive." Chuq Von Rospach explained that that means, | The account has been turned off. Something in my original question triggered the admin filter here, so my post took some time to reach the membership of list-managers. In the meanwhile, postmaster@worldnet.att.com told me what Chuq said: that the account has been turned off. Heaven forbid that worldnet should say something like "unknown user" or "recipient unknown" that the rest of us could understand without our having to write back to ask for an explanation. But at least it is not in the same category as Prodigy's "user is currently disabled." Every time I get that one I'm tempted to write back to Prodigy administrators, "Please give your customer my best wishes for a full and speedy recovery, but I don't understand why a temporary disability is reason to cut off incoming email." From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 19 02:36:36 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA04653; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:59:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id AAA04637 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:58:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from tera.bctel.net (tera.bctel.net [204.174.64.252]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA09627 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:34:48 -0800 (PST) From: brian@ilinx.com Received: (from nobody@localhost) by tera.bctel.net (8.7.6/8.7.1) id KAA11748; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:33:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from beavis.bctel.net(204.174.66.19) by tera.bctel.net via smap (V2.0) id xma011718; Fri, 16 Jan 98 10:33:11 -0800 Received: (from murrell@localhost) by beavis.bctel.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA20829; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:33:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199801161833.KAA20829@beavis.bctel.net> X-Authentication-Warning: beavis.bctel.net: murrell set sender to brian@ilinx.com using -f Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:33:02 -0800 (PST) To: mcook@unidial.com Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Outlook 98 beta In-Reply-To: <34BEB002.4FE34A06@unidial.com> X-Mailer: Ishmail 1.3.2-980107-sol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk from the quill of Merrill Cook on scroll <34BEB002.4FE34A06@unidial.com> > I just loaded the Outlook 98 beta. I noticed something that looks kinda > odd: Why does this not surprise me? > When I reply to a note that has a "Sender" (header) that is different > from the "From:" header, Outlook is including BOTH the sender and the > >From address in the reply. Oh yeah...This is definately illegal. Perhaps somebody needs to print off some RFCs in large font print. So does anybody know definitively, is there a real shortage of brain cells at MS in the RFC reading and implementing department? I mean how difficult is it to read a recipie (the RFC) and just make your software do what the RFC says it MUST (and hopefully SHOULD) do? Sheesh. > Don't most list management packages use "list-owner" for the Sender? > Won't this default behavior be pretty nasty to the list-owners who will > now get two copies of each message? Yup, assuming they are on the lists they admin. :-) > Is there any way to get a loud message to Microsoft to stop doing it > this way, or at least to make it a configurable option that is turned > off by default (so a simple reply goes only to the "From:" field, not > the "sender"). -- Brian J. Murrell brian@ilinx.com InterLinx Support Services, Inc. North Vancouver, B.C. 604 983 UNIX Platform and Brand Independent UNIX Support - R3.2 - R4 - BSD From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 19 10:19:44 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA01836; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:26:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id JAA01717 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:26:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from om.proper.com (om.proper.com [165.227.249.115]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA10681 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:24:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199801191724.JAA10681@mail.proper.com> X-Sender: paulh@mail.imc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:26:45 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: Outlook 98 beta In-Reply-To: <199801161833.KAA20829@beavis.bctel.net> References: <34BEB002.4FE34A06@unidial.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk A few of us have already contacted Microsoft People Who Should Know Better about this report. I haven't heard back yet, but if the bug is real, I'm sure it will now be squashed quickly. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 19 10:19:52 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA04065; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:45:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id JAA01784 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:26:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from om.proper.com (om.proper.com [165.227.249.115]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA10677; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:23:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199801191723.JAA10677@mail.proper.com> X-Sender: paulh@mail.imc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:25:21 -0800 To: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: new worldnet NDN error In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:19 PM 1/17/98 -0600, David W. Tamkin wrote: >Something in my original question triggered the admin filter here, so my >post took some time to reach the membership of list-managers.  In the >meanwhile, postmaster@worldnet.att.com told me what Chuq said: that the >account has been turned off. It would help us all if you would send a message back to whoever contacted you from Worldnet and ask them to get the error message changed. Yes, it's a long shot that a tech support person could get action from the sysadmin, but if you mention that they're being roundly made fun of by a bunch of list managers, it might help. :-) --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 19 14:03:33 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA22025; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:56:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from gate.insite.co.uk (gate.insite.co.uk [193.123.212.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id NAA22010 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:56:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from janeway.verity.com (janeway.verity.com [192.168.70.135]) by gate.insite.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA04782 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:40:24 GMT Received: by janeway.verity.com with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) id ; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:01:13 -0000 Message-ID: From: Peter Bowyer To: "'list-managers@greatcircle.com'" Subject: MSN??? Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:01:12 -0000 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Anyone else having trouble with msn.com today? None of their MXs is answering - there's undelivered mail all over the machine room floor here :-(( Peter From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 20 01:49:01 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA28268; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:16:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id WAA19789 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:34:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA22720 ; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:39:06 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199801191723.JAA10677@mail.proper.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:37:13 -0800 To: Paul Hoffman / IMC , dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: new worldnet NDN error Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:25 AM -0800 1/19/98, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > It would help us all if you would send a message back to whoever >contacted you > from Worldnet and ask them to get the error message changed. Actually, I don't mind MSN much. At least they don't send out false positives like a lot of sites. You want to go nuke someone, go nuke whoever thought they could write CCmail without ever looking at a standards doc. MSN is irritating but cosmetic. It's the least of my problems (grin). -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 21 22:51:41 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA18031; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:21:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA07987 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 21:30:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from elycion.geology.ualberta.ca by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id VAA23326; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 21:13:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.254.96.49] ([207.254.96.49]) by elycion.geology.ualberta.ca (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA18606; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:18:50 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:05:39 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, ListMom-Talk Discussion List From: Vince Sabio Subject: Adventures of the Clue Impaired Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi kids, In this installment of "Adventures of the Clue Impaired," we watch the Clueless People(tm) in one of their natural habitats: mailing lists. This one sent to me by a subscriber to one of my lists ... - Vince --- begin forwarded text Vince: Below is the info posting today from Eudora list. I send you it only so you can properly appreciate the reply it got from the clueless (and soon to be ex) list member of the day. I don't see what the instructions omitted and since it was a reply, the jerk had to have received it. At least the dummy kept it short. I'm surprised the reply didn't quote the whole message! Perhaps the list owner needs to implement unsub fees. --Jim <<<>>> Subject: Welcome to eudora-mac: List Information From: "Matt Garland" Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:58:25 +0000 Hey all, It's the file you all have come to know and love ... Matt's semi-whenever-he-feels-like-it-or-someone-sends-mail-to-the-list saying-can-we-unsubscribe-him/her LIST INFORMATION BULLETIN!!!! -matt -list admin, and generally a nice guy. ---------------------------------- Some people choose not to save the welcome message they receive when they subscribe to listservers. This is a *bad idea*. It only causes problems for everyone involved. Since this is the case, I'm going to periodically (maybe bi-monthly or so) send this e-mail explaining how to unsubscribe, as well as other stuff. To SUBSCRIBE: send any message to eudora-mac-on@wso.williams.edu To UNSUBSCRIBE: send any message to eudora-mac-off@wso.williams.edu To SWITCH TO DIGEST: send mail to majordomo@wso.williams.edu in the subject, type subscribe digest eudora-mac To SWITCH FROM DIGEST TO REGULAR MAIL: send mail to majordomo@wso.williams.edu in the subject, type subscribe eudora-mac To GET HELP: send mail to majordomo@wso.williams.edu in the subject, type help To REACH ME (only if all else fails): send mail to Matthew.A.Garland@williams.edu I may take some time to get back to you. But I would prefer you NOT send subscription requests to the list. Now, there have been HUGE problems with people switching e-mail addresses and expecting the list to understand. If you subscribe as "joe@prime.net" through the form on the web site, but then you try to send mail from Eudora, which you've configured as "joe@mail.prime.net" the listserver WON'T understand you. **** Which is why you HAVE TO KEEP THE E-MAIL YOU RECEIVE WHEN YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE LIST. **** Whatever address is in the To: field of that mail is the address you are subscribed as, and the address you can unsubscribe from or send mail from. Here's a little secret ... IF you've changed addresses and you want to send mail from your old address, open up Netscape, go into Mail and News Preferences, put in the old address, and send mail from New ... Mail Message. This is useful thing to remember. Thank you for your time. -matt ------ Matt Garland ..... Williams College, Class of '98 http://wso.williams.edu/~mgarland/ "Now be a good male and squirt out lots of sperm." - Kat. Developmental Bio. No excuses. <<<>>> <<<>>> Subject: Re: Welcome to eudora-mac: List Information From: "RDAVIS@MIND.NET" Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:23:08 -0700 HOW DO I GET OFF THIS LIST??????? <<<>>> --- end forwarded text Be sure to tune in to "Adventures of the Clue Impaired" next week, when we observe Clueless People(tm) exchanging Good Times Virus(sm) warnings! :-) __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Boy & His Sabre: vince@humournet.com Stop Internet Spam! Behind every successful man Behind every successful man is a is a surprised woman woman with expensive taste -- Maryon Pearson -- Vince Sabio From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 23 17:35:22 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA12360; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:26:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id RAA12352 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:26:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.n.ml.org (narnia.mhv.net [199.0.0.118]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id HAA15852 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 07:37:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from djr@localhost by mail.n.ml.org (Sendmail 8.8.8) via SMTP (KAA01056) on Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:39:03 -0500 (199801181539) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:39:01 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Reed To: Nick Perry cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: being a good citizen In-Reply-To: <19980118134532.26338@amulation.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Nick Perry wrote: ) Presumably, you expect to be sending (in the 20k example), say, 20 ) messages to 1000 people or 1 message to 20000 people rather than the ) other extreme of 20000 messages to 1 person. If so, then a mailing list ) that operates along the lines of majordomo & sendmail will have a far ) smaller impact than you might imagine. Sending a single 50k email ) message to 1000 AOL subscribers, for instance, will result in only one ) 50k message plus a list of 1000 addresses being sent to the AOL MTA, ) rather than 1000 50k messages each with one address. Actually, that's rather untrue. sendmail breaks the recipient list up when delivering a message. For example, delivering a post for the vcpp@narnia.mhv.net mailing list, with 365 subscribers, actually takes 16 envelopes. All outgoing mail passes through mail.mhv.net, my providers mail server, but the message is uploaded to mail.mhv.net 16 times. That's with 365 subscribers. 16/365*1000 = ~44 split envelopes for your example, and at 50k apiece, that's 2 and a quarter megabytes being delivered. Now, that's not the almost 50 megabytes that would be delivered if it delivered the message to each recipipent separately (like how qmail operates), but it's not the 50 kilobytes you'd think either. -- Daniel Reed (3CE060DD) System administrator of narnia.n.ml.org (narnia.mhv.net [199.0.0.118]) Misspelled? Impossible. My modem is error correcting! From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 23 17:49:51 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA14837; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:46:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id RAA12393 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:27:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from luomat.peak.org (cc344191-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com [24.2.83.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id JAA04032 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 09:36:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (from luomat@localhost) by luomat.peak.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA29732 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:39:15 -0500 (GMT-0500) Message-Id: <199801181739.MAA29732@luomat.peak.org> Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 4.1mach v148) X-Image-URL: http://www.peak.org/~luomat/next/luomat@peak.org.tiff In-Reply-To: <19980118134532.26338@amulation.co.uk> X-Nextstep-Mailer: Mail 4.1mach (Enhance 2.1) Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.148.RR) From: Timothy J Luoma Date: Sun, 18 Jan 98 12:39:10 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: being a good citizen References: <34c3f67c.1959750@mail.op.net> <19980118134532.26338@amulation.co.uk> X-Image-URL-Disclaimer: hey, it's off my student ID, gimme a break ;-) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > ...current customers, so we can make a pretty good prediction of the > volume to be going to larger ISPs. (Not surprisingly, AOL is by far > the largest single ISP.) AOL has a restriction about the *number* of messages which can be waiting for someone. I do not know if they limit the size of their mailbox. I do know that places like Earthlink do. Something that CNet does which you might want to consider is they send out a "blurbmail" which has overviews of several articles, and inline URLs to the full text. You might find it works smoother for you if you can send several 5k messages pointing to 70k (or however) worth of information. You run less chance of running into quotas, and will eat a lot less bandwidth. Obviously, just a suggestion which is not free of its own problems. TjL From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 24 14:05:43 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA29150; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:48:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA14267 for ; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:42:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from loki.polarnet.ca by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id MAA08895; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:44:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from 199.247.120.73 (pmisc73.polarnet.ca [199.247.120.73]) by loki.polarnet.ca (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA23566 for ; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:36:11 GMT Message-ID: <34CA53B2.5202@polarnet.ca> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:48:50 -0700 From: Stephen Bedingfield Reply-To: stephenb@polarnet.ca X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Mungedomain Help References: <199801241048.CAA11315@honor.greatcircle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I received a bounce from my list because of a "Non-member submission". The poster is subscribed as but when they posted from a specific host machine the bounce occurred. Would the mungedomain variable set to "yes" in the list config file resolve this problem? What exactly is mungedomain? Are there any disadvantages to setting mungedomain to "yes"? Conversely, with mungedomain set to "yes" would someone subscribed as be able to post from ? Thanks for your assistance... stephen From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 24 16:05:55 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA05349; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from outgoing.azstarnet.com (outgoing.azstarnet.com [169.197.1.34]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id OAA15156 for ; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:45:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from polaris.azstarnet.com ([169.197.1.8]) by outgoing.azstarnet.com (8.8.5-nerd/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA11761; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 15:48:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from Pbish (dialup19ip48.tus.azstarnet.com [169.197.39.112]) by polaris.azstarnet.com (8.8.5-nerd/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA09579; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 15:48:31 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199801242248.PAA09579@polaris.azstarnet.com> X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ From: "Bob Bish" Organization: http://www.humvee.com To: stephenb@polarnet.ca Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 15:48:34 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Mungedomain Help Reply-to: bish@azstarnet.com CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: <34CA53B2.5202@polarnet.ca> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Would the mungedomain variable set to "yes" in the list config file > resolve this problem? What exactly is mungedomain? It doesn't seem to, although I think it's supposed to. I have it set to "yes", but still get that same problem. > Conversely, with mungedomain set to "yes" would someone subscribed as > be able to post from ? Not in my experience. What we've done with the lists on mailinglists.org is to create a separate list called "known". We zubscribe all alternate addresses and alternate versions of address that come up to the "known" list, then add it to the "restrict_post" line. That way, members can post from any/all addresses without bouncing as "non-member submissions". The "known" list is otherwise invisible. ...Bob From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 24 18:38:05 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA05437; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:02:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [209.157.82.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id OAA07625 for ; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:16:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from postmodern.com (foucault.postmodern.com [209.157.82.5]) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-960422) with ESMTP id OAA15800; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:19:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34CA6922.D2F1902D@postmodern.com> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:20:18 -0800 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: stephenb@polarnet.ca CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Mungedomain Help References: <199801241048.CAA11315@honor.greatcircle.com> <34CA53B2.5202@polarnet.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Stephen Bedingfield wrote: > I received a bounce from my list because of a "Non-member submission". > The poster is subscribed as but when they posted from a > specific host machine the bounce occurred. > > Would the mungedomain variable set to "yes" in the list config file > resolve this problem? What exactly is mungedomain? > > Are there any disadvantages to setting mungedomain to "yes"? > > Conversely, with mungedomain set to "yes" would someone subscribed as > be able to post from ? Please do not post Majordomo-specific questions to the list-managers mailing list, which is for general discussions. There are several Majordomo mailing lists hosted at greatcircle.com; send the message "lists" to majordomo@greatcircle.com and subscribe/post to the appropriate list. Thanks, -- Michael C. Berch Postmaster and List Manager, Great Circle Associates mcb@greatcircle.com / mcb@postmodern.com From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 26 08:21:08 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA22110; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:17:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from siberia.demon.co.uk (siberia.demon.co.uk [158.152.123.170]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA22083 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:17:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <199801261611.claire.98015442@siberia.demon.co.uk> From: claire@siberia.demon.co.uk (Claire McNab) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:11:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Win95 list software Reply-to: Claire@siberia.demon.co.uk In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) via PM-Demon V4.04 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 15 Jan 98 at 17:27, Kyle wrote: > I thought I saw some list software for Win95 listed here that was freeware, > but I didn't save the message nor do I know where the archives are for the > list to look through them. Would anyone happen to have the list software > names and/or locations to get it? Thanks. I belive the the 95/NT version of ListServ Lite is free for a small number of lists and/or subscriber: http://www.lsoft.com/ Also, if you would like something that has an SMTP server built in, take a look at http://www.fastraq.demon.co.uk/ It's not free, but very cheap: and it's a program. HTH Claire -- Claire McNab -- Claire@siberia.demon.co.uk From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 29 15:14:06 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA02473; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:52:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipro.com (farad.ipro.com [204.179.121.96]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id LAA19592 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:25:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from pc051.ipro.com by ipro.com (8.8.8/SMI-SVR4) id LAA22329; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:30:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980129112925.007f05c0@204.179.121.96> X-Sender: ariel@204.179.121.96 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:29:25 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Ariel Poler Subject: Looking for Feedback About Moderators' Needs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I am doing research for a company that is considering developing enhanced services for mailing list moderators. I am looking for volunteers to fill out a short questionnaire (should take just a few minutes) to better understand the needs of moderators. Participants will receive the results from the survey, and will be able to sign up to become beta testers. If you can spare a few minutes, please send an email to mailto:ariel@inscan.com and provide your name: organization: list name: Thanks! Ariel Poler 415-931-5049 (tel) 415-680-2464 (fax) From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 29 21:53:00 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA02077; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:46:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA28127 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:26:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from spock.leben.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id VAA26438; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:28:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mitch@localhost) by spock.leben.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA14157 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:28:30 -0600 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:28:30 -0600 (CST) From: Mitchell Leben Reply-To: Mitchell Leben To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Ever Been Sued? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Time for me to come out of the woodwork and ask a few questions. A list member has threatened to sue me because I first filtered posts from his account, then removed him from the list. He became the center of a flame war, and caused many people to leave the list. People wrote to me privately explaining they left because of him, or requesting he be removed or they will leave. I did send this individual a warning message, which he viewed as an attack. His on list behavior became increasingly rude and abrasive, and I gave him the boot. Now he plans to sue me. Some clips from one of his emails to me: "I have saved all the evidence of slander posted from your list-server." "Due to your in-attention in enforcing your own rules, I'm afraid I've lost revenue, which I can prove in court." "Your unfair rule enforcement also abridges my right to free speech, so a civil rights violation is also at issue." "Looking forward to seeing you in court..." This individual has been on the list for a good while, and only recently went off the edge. A few days after kicking him off all the threads and flames died down, and I wrote to him again. I explained why he was kicked, and made the offer that he was welcome back as long as he behaved. His response was litigious. So my question is, what will happen if this goes to court? In my opinion the legal threat is frivolous, but I am not a lawyer. It is my understanding that a list I create/host/own is mine to do with as I please. I am anxious to hear from other list owners who may have run into similar situations. Thanks for any insight you can offer. -Mitch --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell Leben Owner of epson-inkjet@leben.com mailing mitch@leben.com list for all Epson Inkjet Printers. Send http://www.leben.com/lists 'subscribe epson-inkjet' to majordomo@leben.com From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 29 23:52:40 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA26522; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:49:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id XAA26504 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:49:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA22850 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:53:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA12369 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:55:37 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:28:30 -0600. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:55:37 -0800 Message-ID: <12367.886146937@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Mitchell Leben wrote: >Time for me to come out of the woodwork and ask a few questions. > >A list member has threatened to sue me because I first filtered posts from >his account, then removed him from the list... >... >So my question is, what will happen if this goes to court? In my opinion >the legal threat is frivolous, but I am not a lawyer. It is my >understanding that a list I create/host/own is mine to do with as I >please. > >I am anxious to hear from other list owners who may have run into similar >situations. Thanks for any insight you can offer. I don't run any lists, but you'll get my advice anyway. There are two main rules you should follow: Rule #1 is: Don't even worry about it until you get served with papers. The odds are better than 99% that you never will. This same sort of intimidation tactic and legal saber rattling happens just about once every two weeks or so on the net to either one of the USENET news spam cancelers or else to some netizen who has made the mistake of complain- ing directly to an E-mail spammer about some E-mail spam. (You should never complain to a spammer directly. Complain to his ISP instead and let his ISP explain to him why what he did was wrong. It will have more of a lasting effect that way.) Anyway, few if any of the Kooks of the Internet ever actually follow thru on these sort of threats. They are just hoping that the bluff alone will be sufficient to allow them to get their way. As a matter of fact, I know know of only one case... just one single documented case in all my years on the net... where a Net-Jerk actually followed through on one of these threats and actually sued someone, and that was when Sanford Wallace sued AOL for his (alleged) right to spam _their_ network without restriction. (I'm not sure but I think that case may still be pending. Either that or else he lost. Even the judge who was hearing motions relating to a preliminary restraining order in the case seemed to agree that Wallace's moronic ``freedom of speech'' legal theories were utterly bogus and utterly without legal merit. Nobody has the right to tell you what to do with your private property, not even the government... except in rare cases of eminent domain.) Anyway, when trying to decide if you should be worried or not about these sorts of threats, consider this... people who are _serious_ about suing DO NOT generally announce their intentions with great fanfare and ranting the way your kook has done. People who are serious about suing don't talk about it, they just do it. In my experience, the very fact that someone is _talking_ about suing you means that he isn't serious, and is just hoping to get a rise out of you, or hoping that he can make you cower in unwarranted fear of the legal process. (Oh! And by the way, I have been threatened with lawsuits four times while I've been fighting junk E-mail spam... twice by corporations... and I ain't been sued yet.) Note that even if worse comes to worse and the Jerk manages to get his head out of his ass for long enough to be able to file legal papers, you _still_ will have plenty of opportunities to pacify him with some token gesture of conciliation. The wheels of civil justice grind VERY VERY slowly. I have a suit pending now against the jerk who subscription-bombed my server (twice), and my attorney told me that _if_ the jerk manages to respond to the initial papers (which he has 30 days to do), I _may_ get my day in court some 10 months after that 30 day response period runs out. In short, our legal processe gives everyone plenty of time to reach friendly out-out-court accomodations. (If you want a whole long list of bogus legal threats along the same lines as the one you received, just ask Chris Lewis, USENET spam canceler of long standing, about all of the bogus legal threats he has endured over the past couple of years. I'm sure that he has many funny stories to tell about these. Also, it's really fun to see one of these spammer jerks show up in one of the news.admin.net-abuse.* newsgroups... as they do on occasion, just to give us all a laugh... and to then see them threaten Chris or some other spam canceler with a lawsuit based upon the first amendment. The really hilarious part is the way that they all slink quietly back into obscurity when someone explains to them that Chris lives in Canada, and that they don't have the same laws or courts as we here in the U.S. do. :-) Rule #2 is: Now that you have received the threat, DO NOT respond in any way to the jerk ever again... no E-mails, no snail-mail, no phone calls, no nuthin'. Do not respond TO HIM and also do not write or talk ABOUT HIM in or on your mailing list or in or on any other fora. As far as is humanly possible, you must now pretend that he doesn't exist. Archive every E-mail or snail-mail that he sends you, but DO NOT respond in any way to any of them. If he calls you, just tell him that your attorney has advised you not to talk to him. If he asks you for the name and/or address of your attorney, tell him that your attorney has also advised you not to give out that information and then say goodbye and hang up. Trust me on this. Once someone makes a legal threat, even if the odds are very very high that it is utterly bogus (as it is in this case) you _must_ totally disengage from that person and direct all further correspondance to your attorney. But keep in mind that it is NOT your responsibility to tell the jerk who your attorney is. If he wants to be a prick, let him go and do his own research. Of course there are other good reasons to totally cease communications of any kind with this guy once he has made a legal threat. One is that this insures that if you _have_ in fact said or done anything ``actionable'', then at least you won't be doing it again. Another is that total silence is probably the single best way to get him to forget about the whole thing. And last but certainly not least, total silence is (in my opinion) one of the best and most eloquent ways of saying (in effect) ``Don't go away mad... just go away.'' -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 01:25:33 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA02125; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:39:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id AAA02115 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:39:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from stinson.amys-answers.com (amys-answers.com [205.160.203.108]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id FAA05640 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 05:00:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199801231300.FAA05640@honor.greatcircle.com> Received: from basement (205.161.197.98) by stinson.amys-answers.com (LSMTP Lite for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.93B81760@stinson.amys-answers.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 7:50:30 -0500 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Amy Stinson" Organization: Amy's Answers To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, LISTSERV-LITE@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:51:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: AOL changes? Reply-to: amys@amys-answers.com In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Yesterday I had a list member write me and tell me that she had not gotten any mail from my list site in over a day (extremely high volume list so she *should* have gotten mail). A scan of members showed her on there and receiving mail in index format. When I checked the smtp logs, this message occurred: 13:45:35 *** Would have refused mail from <> for from 205.160.203.108 Nothing has changed at my end. I receive the index for myself from another account on a different machine just fine. It seems to be only AOL and these people are not getting their mail. any suggestions? amy From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 01:29:02 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA07822; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 01:16:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from praline.no.neosoft.com (praline.no.NeoSoft.COM [206.27.160.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id BAA07568 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 01:15:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 3184 invoked by uid 10086); 30 Jan 1998 09:20:07 -0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 03:20:07 -0600 (CST) From: Ray Jones To: Mitchell Leben cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Mitchell Leben wrote: > So my question is, what will happen if this goes to court? In my opinion > the legal threat is frivolous, but I am not a lawyer. It is my > understanding that a list I create/host/own is mine to do with as I > please. > > I am anxious to hear from other list owners who may have run into similar > situations. Thanks for any insight you can offer. I've never run into it and I'm not a lawyer, but it is definitely frivilous if your list is run like most. Are you charging for the list or is it a privilege that comes with membership to some organization or something similar? If so, perhaps. Otherwise, I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. If the list is like most I've ever heard of, it is run free of charge with you providing the labor and is done as a labor of love. Anyone on the list is there simply because you feel like letting them. It is not a right and it is not a public forum except as you allow it to be. His charge that you are violating his right to free speech is ludricous. The Constitution does provide that the government must not pass any laws limiting freedom of speech, but it does not require that private citizens (or even the government for that matter) provide such a forum. A person may be able to stand outside the Pentagon or the White House and protest or say what they feel, but try going inside into areas that are not open to the public. In fact, I bet you couldn't even get by with it in many areas that ARE open to the public and that's government property. A person may have the right to stand in the street or on the sidewalk in front of your house and preach from a soapbox, but he doesn't have the right to do so in your front yard. If your list is like most, it is a private list and no one has any rights whatsoever unless you grant them. They can be taken away as you see fit as well. I wouldn't even do him the honor of a reply. Just "bounce" all of his mail back to him or simply delete it. -- Regards, "Big Ray the Cab Driver" Jones - Licensed Tour Guide ICQ UIN 1473313 Disseminating info about New Orleans & Louisiana via my web page at http://www.neosoft.com/~rayjones/welcome.html or you can join "Big Ray's" New Orleans Mailing List by sending: subscribe noml To: majordomo@communique.net From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 01:33:20 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA06361; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:59:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id AAA06353 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:59:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from beltway.cd.com (beltway.cd.com [204.217.30.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id HAA19404 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 07:59:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from bif.cd.com by beltway.cd.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA28468; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:03:07 -0600 Received: by bif.cd.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA23859; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:02:25 -0600 From: richardm@cd.com (Richard Masoner) Message-Id: <199801261602.KAA23859@bif.cd.com> Subject: broken RFC headers To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:02:24 -0600 (CST) 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 Greetings. First, I suppose an intro is in order. I've been browsing the list-manager list archives and enjoy reading the discussions. I can relate very well to clueless newby stories, unsubscribe requests sent to the list (although instructions on doing this and other list functions is now a part of my sig file, fer cryin out loud), problems with MS Outlook attachments, and bounced mail from Juno. So I joined this list :-) I've been running a general discussion list since 1993. To circumvent problems with spam and trollers, the list became subscriber-only in 1994. Because the list is of a religious nature and because of the diverse yet strongly held views held by the listmembers, I had to take it moderated later that same year. And because people can't figure out how to use filters, I limit posts to 35 each day. The list has been running right around 220 subscribers for the past couple of years. I've got scripts to automate a bunch of this stuff. -- Now my question for the day: I have one recent subscriber who is submitting messages with non-RFC compliant broken headers. Specifically, he's using some beta copy of a mailer for Prodigy. Listproc handles that just fine, and I haven't heard of anybody's MUA breaking when they get his mail, but it makes our archiver core-dump. I've asked the guy who maintains our archive about the possibility of patching the archiver software, but of course he has a million-and-one other things to do. So in the meantime, we're zotting all submissions from this guy. We (the other listowners and I) explained the problem to him, advised him to contact Prodigy tech support and told him *exactly* what to tell Prodigy. We suggested that he could use Prodigy to read his mail and some free service (hotmail or Juno or something) to send messages to the list. The guy never writes back to us, but continues sending responses to messages on the list. It's like he's not getting are mail, nor noticing that his mail isn't getting distributed. We let him now each time his message gets deleted. It's geting old. Any ideas or comments? Thanks, Richard Masoner From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 01:37:49 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA02009; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:37:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id AAA01995 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:37:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ischia.iol.it (ischia.iol.it [195.210.91.100]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id EAA29468 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 04:09:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ischia.iol.it ([127.0.0.1]) by ischia.iol.it (Netscape Messaging Server 3.0) with SMTP id AAA21664; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:11:56 +0100 Received: from dante.iol.it ([195.210.91.2]) by capri.iol.it (Netscape Messaging Server 3.5) with ESMTP id AXX5E3E for ; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:47:07 +0100 Received: from relay4.UU.NET ([192.48.96.14]) by dante.iol.it (Netscape Messaging Server 3.0) with ESMTP id AAA7359 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:21:04 +0100 Received: from honor.greatcircle.com by relay4.UU.NET with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: honor.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.44]) id QQdyzo02776; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 07:06:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA04653; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:59:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id AAA04637 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:58:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from tera.bctel.net (tera.bctel.net [204.174.64.252]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA09627 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:34:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by tera.bctel.net (8.7.6/8.7.1) id KAA11748; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:33:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from beavis.bctel.net(204.174.66.19) by tera.bctel.net via smap (V2.0) id xma011718; Fri, 16 Jan 98 10:33:11 -0800 Received: (from murrell@localhost) by beavis.bctel.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA20829; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:33:03 -0800 (PST) From: brian@ilinx.com Message-Id: <199801161833.KAA20829@beavis.bctel.net> X-Authentication-Warning: beavis.bctel.net: murrell set sender to brian@ilinx.com using -f Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:33:02 -0800 (PST) To: mcook@unidial.com Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Outlook 98 beta In-Reply-To: <34BEB002.4FE34A06@unidial.com> X-Mailer: Ishmail 1.3.2-980107-sol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk from the quill of Merrill Cook on scroll <34BEB002.4FE34A06@unidial.com> > I just loaded the Outlook 98 beta. I noticed something that looks kinda > odd: Why does this not surprise me? > When I reply to a note that has a "Sender" (header) that is different > from the "From:" header, Outlook is including BOTH the sender and the > >From address in the reply. Oh yeah...This is definately illegal. Perhaps somebody needs to print off some RFCs in large font print. So does anybody know definitively, is there a real shortage of brain cells at MS in the RFC reading and implementing department? I mean how difficult is it to read a recipie (the RFC) and just make your software do what the RFC says it MUST (and hopefully SHOULD) do? Sheesh. > Don't most list management packages use "list-owner" for the Sender? > Won't this default behavior be pretty nasty to the list-owners who will > now get two copies of each message? Yup, assuming they are on the lists they admin. :-) > Is there any way to get a loud message to Microsoft to stop doing it > this way, or at least to make it a configurable option that is turned > off by default (so a simple reply goes only to the "From:" field, not > the "sender"). -- Brian J. Murrell brian@ilinx.com InterLinx Support Services, Inc. North Vancouver, B.C. 604 983 UNIX Platform and Brand Independent UNIX Support - R3.2 - R4 - BSD From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 08:30:08 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA11935; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:07:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from spock.leben.com ([198.64.225.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA11624 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:06:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mitch@localhost) by spock.leben.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA22342; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:09:38 -0600 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:09:38 -0600 (CST) From: Mitchell Leben To: Ray Jones cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Ray Jones wrote: > I've never run into it and I'm not a lawyer, but it is definitely > frivilous if your list is run like most. Are you charging for the list or > is it a privilege that comes with membership to some organization or > something similar? If so, perhaps. Otherwise, I wouldn't loose any sleep > over it. This is a 'normal' list open to the public. I do not charge for membership, and zubscription is the member's choice. > is there simply because you feel like letting them. It is not a right and > it is not a public forum except as you allow it to be. His charge that you > are violating his right to free speech is ludricous. I think this is the heart of the matter. He has no given right to participate on my list, and if I kick him off he has no recourse. Some people are just chomping at the bit to sue. Perhaps he intends to drain my million$. If so, he has quite a surprise in store. -Mitch From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 08:38:15 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA29534; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:16:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from spock.leben.com ([198.64.225.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id HAA29506 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:16:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mitch@localhost) by spock.leben.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA21443; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:18:57 -0600 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:18:57 -0600 (CST) From: Mitchell Leben To: Vince Sabio cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Vince Sabio wrote: > I run half a dozen lists, and I've been there before -- as have most > active list owners that I know. This my first, 'earning my wings' I suppose. I now have four busy lists going. > In short, it's just bleating. Ignore it. I've heard probably HUNDREDS > of "I'm going to sue you" cases -- but not a SINGLE suit that has ever > actually been filed. Many people have written to me off list citing the same thing: Never heard of a case actually going to court. He and I did have a couple of email exchanges, but for the most part I was silent. I never mentioned his name on the list. > Chances are, if it ever happens, I'll be the first one served. > I'll be sure to keep everyone abreast of the details when that happens. Gee Vince, thanks for offering to chart the waters for us. Perhaps something truly significant will come of such a case (ie. setting precedent for the rest of us). -Mitch From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 08:48:49 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA25918; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 06:58:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from grinch.whoville.leftbank.com (grinch.leftbank.com [139.167.128.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id GAA25803 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 06:58:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from zax.whoville.leftbank.com by grinch.whoville.leftbank.com via smtpd (for honor.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.44]) with SMTP; 30 Jan 1998 15:02:44 UT Received: from horton-x.whoville.leftbank.com (horton.whoville.leftbank.com [139.167.32.35]) by zax.leftbank.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/LeftBank-1.1/http://www.leftbank.com/) with ESMTP id KAA03353; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from nmehl@localhost) by horton-x.whoville.leftbank.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/http://www.LeftBank.Com) id KAA03199; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:02:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19980130100242.32370@leftbank.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:02:42 -0500 From: "Nathan J. Mehl" To: Mitchell Leben Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.85 In-Reply-To: ; from Mitchell Leben on Thu, Jan 29, 1998 at 11:28:30PM -0600 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In the immortal words of Mitchell Leben (mitch@leben.com): > > A list member has threatened to sue me because I first filtered posts from > his account, then removed him from the list. He became the center of a > flame war, and caused many people to leave the list. > > Now he plans to sue me. Some clips from one of his emails to me: > > "I have saved all the evidence of slander posted from your list-server." > "Due to your in-attention in enforcing your own rules, I'm afraid I've > lost revenue, which I can prove in court." > "Your unfair rule enforcement also abridges my right to free speech, so a > civil rights violation is also at issue." > "Looking forward to seeing you in court..." Oy. One of _them_. First and foremost, I strongly recommend that you _not_ lose any sleep over this. The ratio of people on the net who threaten to sue to those that actually do is staggeringly high. This person sounds to me like a standard-issue blusterer. He just wants to yank your chain. If he were actually going to sue for damages, he would be having his lawyer send you a summons, not personally badgering you with email. (And as Joe-Bob Briggs pointed out a while back, sueing somebody is not the cathartic, People's Court-esque experience that most of these morons seem to think it is. Lawsuits take YEARS, and they mostly consist of lawyers sending letters back and forth. Very few of them actually see the inside of a courtroom. Your rude little friend would probably be greatly disappointed.) I have a short form reponse that I use with these types, and I strongly recommend it: Since you have threatened me with litigation, I am afraid that I can no longer communicate with you, lest I jeopardize my interests in the discovery phase of any possible court action. Please direct any further correspondence by means of registered postal mail to my attorney, who you can reach at . And then, start bouncing all of their mail. (If you own your own box, I can provide you with a sendmail ruleset to do this; if not, you can use procmail.) > So my question is, what will happen if this goes to court? In my opinion > the legal threat is frivolous, but I am not a lawyer. It is my > understanding that a list I create/host/own is mine to do with as I > please. Entirely frivolous. He'd have to prove monetary damage in order to collect anything, and that would be damn close to impossible. The only seriously threatening part of it is how much of your time it could take up, but since it would also take up an equal amount of _his_ time, I wouldn't sweat it. -n -- The life of a sysadmin is always intense! Nathan J. Mehl --- The LeftBank Operation nmehl@leftbank.com -- http://www.leftbank.com A Global Internet Company. http://www.gi.net From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 08:54:56 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA17238; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:47:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA13736 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:14:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id IAA00212; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:17:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA26250 ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:20:23 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199801261602.KAA23859@bif.cd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:14:51 -0800 To: richardm@cd.com (Richard Masoner), List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: broken RFC headers Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 8:02 AM -0800 1/26/98, Richard Masoner wrote: > The guy never writes back to us, but continues sending responses to > messages on the list. It's like he's not getting are mail, nor > noticing that his mail isn't getting distributed. We let him now each > time his message gets deleted. It's geting old. > > Any ideas or comments? Unsubscribe him -- and tell him he can't rejoin until his mailer works right. That he can't ignore quite so easily. At least he's likely to stop blowing you off..... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 09:06:43 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA15628; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 06:11:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.telephonet.com ([207.254.96.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id GAA15547 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 06:11:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.254.96.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.254.96.49]) by ns.telephonet.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA19974; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:15:19 -0500 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:23:42 -0500 To: Mitchell Leben From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 0:28 -0500 1/30/98, Mitchell Leben said: >Time for me to come out of the woodwork and ask a few questions. > >A list member has threatened to sue me because I first filtered posts from >his account, then removed him from the list. He became the center of a ::snip the usual lawsuit stuff:: >I am anxious to hear from other list owners who may have run into similar >situations. Thanks for any insight you can offer. I run half a dozen lists, and I've been there before -- as have most active list owners that I know. In short, it's just bleating. Ignore it. I've heard probably HUNDREDS of "I'm going to sue you" cases -- but not a SINGLE suit that has ever actually been filed. Chances are, if it ever happens, I'll be the first one served. I'll be sure to keep everyone abreast of the details when that happens. :-) - Vince Sabio vince@humournet.com Automatically process bounces from mailing lists: From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 09:54:39 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA18651; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:53:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id AAA28821 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:05:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA17840 ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:11:42 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <12367.886146937@monkeys.com> References: Your message of Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:28:30 -0600. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:09:19 -0800 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:55 PM -0800 1/29/98, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > Rule #1 is: Don't even worry about it until you get served with papers. > The odds are better than 99% that you never will. The couple of times I've run into guys who pull this stunt, my immediate response is "because litigation has been threatened, all future discussion must go through legal counsel. Have your lawyer contact me and I'll put them in touch with my counsel, because we can no longer communicate directly." And then reject all future mail from the guy that doesn't include a lawyer's phone number. Don't respond in any way. In fact, if you have spam blocking, block the account and/or site, and tell them to mail you the legal info via US mail. If he's going to use everything you say as evidence in whatever suit he's threatening,you are perfectly justified in cutting off discussion with him. In fact, legally, you probably should to minimize his ability to build a case against you. And since you want to get rid of him anyway, it's a great reason to do so. and if they are able to find a lawyer to pay attention to them, you have a better chance of dealing with them rationally. But the likelihood, unless it's uncle george doing him a favor, is really small. Especially when the lawyer quotes his hourly rate. -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 10:09:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA18836; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:55:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from spock.leben.com ([198.64.225.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id HAA03928 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:35:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mitch@localhost) by spock.leben.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA21836; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:38:21 -0600 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:38:21 -0600 (CST) From: Mitchell Leben To: "Nathan J. Mehl" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? In-Reply-To: <19980130100242.32370@leftbank.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Nathan J. Mehl wrote: > Oy. One of _them_. A not-so-rare breed I take it? Is it genetic? > First and foremost, I strongly recommend that you _not_ lose any > sleep over this. The ratio of people on the net who threaten to sue > to those that actually do is staggeringly high. This person sounds > to me like a standard-issue blusterer. He just wants to yank your > chain. Too late for the sleep thing. I spent a few hours one night reviewing list archives, trying to figure out why a contributing list member went sour. I also printed out the entire episode, just to be safe. > If he were actually going to sue for damages, he would be > having his lawyer send you a summons, not personally badgering you > with email. The summons would take a bit of time, so I do not feel completely out of the woods yet. I realize the numbers are on my side, but this whole thing is now only two to three weeks old. No doubt he is full of hot air. If anything *does* happen, this list will hear all about it (laws permitting of course). > (And as Joe-Bob Briggs pointed out a while back, sueing somebody > is not the cathartic, People's Court-esque experience that most of > these morons seem to think it is. Ten minutes to Whoppener!! > Lawsuits take YEARS, and they mostly consist of lawyers sending letters > back and forth. Very few of them actually see the inside of a > courtroom. Your rude little friend would probably be greatly > disappointed.) Perhaps he envisions me on the stand, receiving scowls from the jury. "Mr. Leben is an evil man your honor..." Stranger things happen every day. > I have a short form reponse that I use with these types, and I > strongly recommend it: With your permission, I will modify this and keep it on hand. > And then, start bouncing all of their mail. (If you own your own > box, I can provide you with a sendmail ruleset to do this; if not, > you can use procmail.) I wonder what causes blood to boil more, being sent to /dev/null or bounced mail? A while ago I had another disgruntled list member on AOL who put me in his spam filter. I was quite relieved to see the bounce stating he would ignore all mail from my address! One less headache to deal with. > Entirely frivolous. He'd have to prove monetary damage in order > to collect anything, and that would be damn close to impossible. I am guessing he holds that he spent X hours dealing with the problem, and he makes $x.xx an hour... If that is the case then I have him licked, at least on the time spent. > The only seriously threatening part of it is how much of your time > it could take up, but since it would also take up an equal amount > of _his_ time, I wouldn't sweat it. If this does go through, I assume he will loose. The counter suit might be interesting though! > The life of a sysadmin is always intense! Ain't that the truth! -Mitch From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 11:12:55 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA14069; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:56:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw01.execpc.com (mailgw01.execpc.com [169.207.16.9]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA13837 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:55:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from core0.mx.execpc.com (core0.mx.execpc.com [169.207.16.7]) by mailgw01.execpc.com (8.8.8) id MAA17036; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:59:43 -0600 (CST) Received: from presario-7212 (jaemus-24.mdm.mad.execpc.com [169.207.41.25]) by core0.mx.execpc.com (8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA19632; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:59:27 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <34D21B33.350A@execpc.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:25:55 -0600 From: Gillam Kerley X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mitchell Leben CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Mitchell Leben wrote: [snip] > > Now he plans to sue me. As previous responses have suggested, the chances of his actually suing you are slim to none. However, since I think there are some theoretically interesting legal questions here, I'll continue point by point: > Some clips from one of his emails to me: > > "I have saved all the evidence of slander posted from your list-server." If *you* wrote something about him which was both false and defamatory and sent it out to the list (or to any third party), he does have a cause of action for libel. Whether he can prove damages is another question. I suspect that the law is not clear as to whether you as list-owner are liable for libelous comments disseminated by others through your list. There is a 1970s landmark case here in Wisconsin holding that a contract printer is not liable for the libelous content of a newspaper printed there, where the printer had no editorial authority over the content. (I don't know the extent to which other states have followed this reasoning; you could be sued in any state where one or more of your subscribers received e-mail.) And, of course, the phone company isn't liable for slanderous statements made over its phone lines. On the other hand, the publisher of a newspaper is potentially liable for every item in the newspaper, even letters to the editor, because the publisher does have editorial authority. Transmitting a libelous statement made by another is libel. So, the question would be, are you as list-owner going to be treated like a contract printer or like a publisher. IMO, that will turn on whether your list is moderated. If posts are automatically forwarded to your subscribers without any human intervention, then I think you are not liable for their content. If you have to approve content, then I would expect a court to hold you accountable if you approve libel. If you "retro-moderate" by no-posting subscribers based on their content, and fail to stop a subscriber from repeatedly engaging in libel, it could go either way, IMO. > > "Due to your in-attention in enforcing your own rules, I'm afraid I've > lost revenue, which I can prove in court." Is the relationship between list-owner and subscriber governed by contract law? A contract does not require that money change hands; "I'll mop your floor if you wash my car" is a valid contract. On the other hand, a one-sided promise ("I'll wash your car.") is not an enforceable contract. It's clear that the list-owner provides something of value to the subscriber, but does the subscriber provide something of value to the list-owner? The subscribers generally provide content, without which the list would be worthless. But an individual subscriber ordinarily makes no pledge to participate, or to read, or to do anything other than not violate the rules and disrupt the list. Is that enough mutuality to make a contract? Probably not. > > "Your unfair rule enforcement also abridges my right to free speech, so a > civil rights violation is also at issue." As a previous response pointed out, the First Amendment applies only to governmental action. Unless your list-server is run off of a federal, state, or municipal (including university) computer, there is no "state action" here. If you're using a governmental list-server, liability under the sec. 1983 of the civil rights statutes cannot be ruled out. OTOH, if the question were kicking someone off because of race, the question would be not whether you were a governmental entity but whether a list-server is a public accommodation. > It is my > understanding that a list I create/host/own is mine to do with as I > please. The law of the Internet and electronic comunications is in its infancy, and the best we can do is to extrapolate from traditional law. Nothing, however, is completely yours to do with as you please, either in cyberspace or real life. If you buy a building, create a restaurant, and host customers, you can't (1) exclude customers because of race, (2) violate health laws, (3) drop hot coffee in customers laps, or (4) burn the place down, to name a few. You do have pretty complete freedom in deciding whether to serve Thai food or Ethiopian, how to price your menu, what color to paint the walls, etc. Exactly where the line between those two categories is what makes life interesting (and lawyers rich). GK From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 11:55:52 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA02489; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id LAA02375 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:29:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA28885; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:34:23 -0600 (CST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Cc: richardm@cd.com (Richard Masoner) Subject: Re: broken RFC headers References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 30 Jan 1998 13:34:22 -0600 In-Reply-To: Chuq Von Rospach's message of Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:14:51 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 16 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.46/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach writes: CVR> Unzubscribe him -- and tell him he can't rejoin until his mailer works CVR> right. That he can't ignore quite so easily. At least he's likely to CVR> stop blowing you off..... And while you're at it, fix your archiver. It shouldn't ever dump core. (Hypermail has been known to die when given duplicate Message-IDs, but you should have the source to fix it. I've never seen MHonArc crash on a bad message.) The point is that you do need to force this person to send legal messages, but you also need to protect yourself against some remote user being able to blow up your archiver at will. - J< From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 12:01:04 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA01353; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:24:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcp.com (tcp.com [207.126.126.64]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id WAA08565 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:20:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (jlick@localhost) by tcp.com (8.8.8/8.6.10) with SMTP id WAA02912 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:24:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:24:45 -0800 (PST) From: James Lick To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk The correct answer at this point is to refuse to answer him in any way except through his lawyer. If you have a lawyer on retainer send the lawyer's name/address/phone and tell him to go through him/her. It is pointless to discuss anything with anyone who has threatened to sue and could be damaging to you if the other person actually has a case. But, that said, anyone offering a service will eventually get threatened by a suit. Every list manager will probably go through this at some point. Bottom line, it is a private resource that you offer at your discretion, and you have the right to refuse service to anyone for ANY reason other than a few matters of discrimination and other factors that probably don't apply. I have been threatened with suits a handful of times over list activities. They always go away because they have zero chance and they know it. One of them even thought her Internet access fee paid for my list and threatened me over that which gave me a good chuckle and made up for her comparing me to Hitler. -- James Lick -- jlick@drivel.com -- http://drivel.com/jlick/ -- From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 12:06:43 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA06014; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:04:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [36.21.0.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id MAA06007 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:04:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 14240 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jan 1998 20:09:07 -0000 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? References: <12367.886146937@monkeys.com> From: Russ Allbery In-Reply-To: "Ronald F. Guilmette"'s message of "Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:55:37 -0800" Date: 30 Jan 1998 12:09:06 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 47 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.66/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ronald F Guilmette writes: > Trust me on this. Once someone makes a legal threat, even if the odds > are very very high that it is utterly bogus (as it is in this case) you > _must_ totally disengage from that person and direct all further > correspondance to your attorney. But keep in mind that it is NOT your > responsibility to tell the jerk who your attorney is. If he wants to be > a prick, let him go and do his own research. (Note disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.) I'd like to second this. I've had people threaten to sue me before over Usenet newsgroup creation issues, but they don't realize the way the law works. First, if he sues you, it's a civil complaint. That means that *all* of the cost, hassle, research, discovery, and so forth are born by him. He gets to pay every last cent of it up until he gets a judgement against you (which is highly unlikely). The absolute *most* he can do is waste your time or make you retain a lawyer. Second, you are not required to provide him with ANYTHING. And I mean *ANYTHING*. You are not required to talk to him. You are not required to give him contact information. You are not required to tell him where you work, where you live, what state you are in, what *country* you are in, who your lawyer is, how to contact you, how to serve you, or anything else of the sort. What Ron said is precisely accurate; don't say another word to him anywhere, anytime. You are, furthermore, not required to talk to his lawyer either. With precisely the same parameters. This is a civil complaint. As such, there is absolutely *nothing* you have to do for him until he manages to get a court to send you official papers, and the process involved in doing that involves untold hassle and expense on his part, far more than enough to scare off all but the most psychotic and dedicated assholes. And, as an unexpected bonus, if you tell him you are no longer talking to him due to the fact that he's mentioning legal action and specifically tell him you are not interested in any further correspondence with him, and he then attempts to continue contacting you, not only is he potentially compromising his own case, you can make a case against him for harassment if the need arises. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 12:21:44 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA06824; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:11:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA06813 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:11:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.219.12.172] (A17-219-12-172.apple.com [17.219.12.172]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA49560 ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:14:35 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199801301947.NAA09436@lotharon.endicor.com> References: Your message of Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:28:30 -0600. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:52:49 -0800 To: Ty Sarna , chuqui@plaidworks.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >This assumes the guy has or will get a lawyer. Many of these nut jobs >think they're going to act "pro se", brilliant legal minds that they >are. > >This defeats the "tell me you're lawyer's name and I'll put him in touch >with my lawyer" Nope. I decline to deal with him. In that case, I tell him I'll wait for the legal paperwork and interact with him through the court. If he IS that stupid/arrogant/whatever, I want a judge watching things, so he has to file paperwork before I'll do anything more. If he actually does file paperwork, I'd immediately go for a dismissal and explain things to the judge, and let him have a good laugh. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 12:47:34 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA10334; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:32:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from beltway.cd.com (beltway.cd.com [204.217.30.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id MAA10317 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:32:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from bif.cd.com by beltway.cd.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA25261; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:36:24 -0600 Received: by bif.cd.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA07629; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:35:38 -0600 From: richardm@cd.com (Richard Masoner) Message-Id: <199801302035.OAA07629@bif.cd.com> Subject: Re: broken RFC headers To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:35:38 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Jason L Tibbitts III" at Jan 30, 98 01:34:22 pm 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 > And while you're at it, fix your archiver. The guy who maintains our archive ended up writing a quickie little filter to watch for that and some other bugs (he's the type who believes Perl is the perfect solution to everything :-) :-) ). The broken header was the date field. The archiver uses the date field to index everything and it was apparently failing there. I don't have a clue what software is being used to archive my list, though it was almost certainly freeware. Thanks for the responses, y'all. Richard "legal threat recipient also" Masoner From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 15:07:57 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA12179; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:43:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from beltway.cd.com (beltway.cd.com [204.217.30.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id MAA12170 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:43:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from bif.cd.com by beltway.cd.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA25470; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:47:56 -0600 Received: by bif.cd.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA07882; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:47:10 -0600 From: richardm@cd.com (Richard Masoner) Message-Id: <199801302047.OAA07882@bif.cd.com> Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:47:10 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Russ Allbery" at Jan 30, 98 12:09:06 pm 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 I have an amusing story vaguely related to list-owner responsibility. One of the early members of my list was the now-infamous Steve Winter. He's well-known today for his SPAM and rather vitriolic postings. He's the reason my list is now closed AND moderated. Those who monitor the abuse newsgroups will know Winter's name. Winter, BTW, has not been a member of my list for quite some time. Another list member was somebody who was a campaign manager and is now a staffer for a U.S. Representative. Mister Politician quite regularly mocked Winter openly on the list. The ridicule was hilarious. A couple of years later, Mister Politician is searching the web for his name and -- lo and behold! -- he discovers his comments have been archived. He claims he didn't know it at the time (which means he didn't read his welcome message), and asks could I pretty-please remove his name. The archiver-guy did eventually fulfill Politician's request. Have any other owners of archived lists had similar requests to remove archived email? Richard Masoner From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 16:08:46 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA14576; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:23:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from spock.leben.com ([198.64.225.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id OAA00100 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:07:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mitch@localhost) by spock.leben.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA31486; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:09:46 -0600 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:09:46 -0600 (CST) From: Mitchell Leben To: Gillam Kerley cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? In-Reply-To: <34D21B33.350A@execpc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Gillam Kerley wrote: > If *you* wrote something about him which was both false and defamatory > and sent it out to the list (or to any third party), he does have a > cause of action for libel. Whether he can prove damages is another > question. I suspect that the law is not clear as to whether you as > list-owner are liable for libelous comments disseminated by others > through your list. That is a very good question. He is not accusing ME of slander, but is holding me responsible because it is my list. It also happens to be my server, though I doubt he knows that. I wonder if it makes any difference if the list is hosted on a server I own? > So, the question would be, are you as list-owner going to be treated > like a contract printer or like a publisher. IMO, that will turn on > whether your list is moderated. If posts are automatically forwarded to > your subscribers without any human intervention, then I think you are > not liable for their content. If you have to approve content, then I > would expect a court to hold you accountable if you approve libel. If > you "retro-moderate" by no-posting subscribers based on their content, > and fail to stop a subscriber from repeatedly engaging in libel, it > could go either way, IMO. Nice points. I lean toward the the 'contract printer' analogy. The list is unmoderated, though I do step in from time to time. In the beginning I read every post, but now that I have more/larger lists I don't have the time. > Is the relationship between list-owner and subscriber governed by > contract law? A contract does not require that money change hands; > "I'll mop your floor if you wash my car" is a valid contract. On the > other hand, a one-sided promise ("I'll wash your car.") is not an > enforceable contract. I can't see what the list member's promise would be. My duties are fairly clear, but the member is under no obligation to do anything. The only bounds imposed on the member are stated in the list charter. > It's clear that the list-owner provides something of value to the > subscriber, but does the subscriber provide something of value to the > list-owner? I would have to say yes. Each member (even the lurkers) add to the value of a list. Of course the value is really passed directly to the other list members instead of the list owner. I think it is safe to say that most lists owners are not active on all of their lists. At the beginning perhaps, but it seems to me most list owners end up keeping the peace from the sidelines (with exceptions of course). > The subscribers generally provide content, without which > the list would be worthless. But an individual subscriber ordinarily > makes no pledge to participate, or to read, or to do anything other than > not violate the rules and disrupt the list. Is that enough mutuality to > make a contract? Probably not. The only hint of a contract is the charter, which the member agrees to when she joins the list. If I find a charter objectionable, I will not zubscribe. If the member then breaks the rules, she breaks whatever contract may exist. > The law of the Internet and electronic comunications is in its infancy, > and the best we can do is to extrapolate from traditional law. If only I knew more of traditional law! > Nothing, however, is completely yours to do with as you please, either > in cyberspace or real life. If you buy a building, create a restaurant, > and host customers, you can't (1) exclude customers because of race, (2) > violate health laws, (3) drop hot coffee in customers laps, or (4) burn > the place down, to name a few. You do have pretty complete freedom in > deciding whether to serve Thai food or Ethiopian, how to price your > menu, what color to paint the walls, etc. Do you agree though that I can decide who can and cannot participate on my lists? For this discussion we can easily put race aside, one of the benefits of text based communications. Gender is still an issue, though I write to many people with no idea of their gender/age/race, etc. For example, who might "gambler@freemail.com" be? (BTW I just made that up). > Exactly where the line between those two categories is what makes life > interesting (and lawyers rich). ..and list owners apprehensive. Perhaps some of us would jump at the chance to get bogged down in a law suit. I would rather spend time on other (pur)suits. -Mitch From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 30 20:53:09 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA17389; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:52:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id SAA29804 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:35:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from nexus.pigsfly.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id SAA05495; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:23:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from pslfl6-54.gate.net ([199.227.131.117]) by nexus.pigsfly.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-40113U100L100S0) with SMTP id AAA215; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:24:22 -0500 From: jtlist@pigsfly.com (Jerry Trowbridge) To: amys@amys-answers.com Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL changes? Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 02:24:12 GMT Organization: Flying Pig Ranch Reply-To: jtlist@pigsfly.com Message-ID: <34d38a42.31862095@pop.pigsfly.com> References: <199801231300.FAA05640@honor.greatcircle.com> In-Reply-To: <199801231300.FAA05640@honor.greatcircle.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:51:18 -0500, "Amy Stinson" wrote: >Nothing has changed at my end. I receive the index for myself from >another account on a different machine just fine. It seems to be >only AOL and these people are not getting their mail. > >any suggestions? I maintain a separate account at a local ISP for just this eventuality. Send all your aol listmembers a note that aol is blocking their mail, unsubscribe them all, tell them so, and tell them they have two choices: either find another provider, or get aol to pass their mail. It happened to us a few months ago, and aol saw the light real fast. Meanwhile, don't waste your bandwidth trying to make a connection where the mail will drop on the floor. AOL seems to run some kind of detect system that looks for repeated connects where there are lots of names in the envelope addresses and it doesn't match the to: header. They then assume you're a spamhaus. I used to take a lot of time to try and contact these ISPs, but found that the users are a lot more able to do it, speak with a lot louder voice, and are a lot more motivated to do something about it. Good luck. - Jerry Trowbridge --at Flying Pig Ranch From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 00:10:23 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA10934; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 23:36:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id XAA10658 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 23:35:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id WAA10502; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:39:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA29250 ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:42:20 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:18:18 -0800 To: James Lick , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:24 PM -0800 1/29/98, James Lick wrote: > I have been threatened with suits a handful of times over list activities. I have been threatened with physical violence a lot more often than legal violence. I don't necessarily think this is an improvement, but it's just as likely to change my mind... Only a few times have situations escalated where I had to get really nasty, but one of them is the reason why I no longer accept postings from juno.com.... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 00:14:35 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA29298; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:59:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id WAA26154 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:41:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from uu9.psi.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id WAA10744; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:43:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from dkmc.UUCP by uu9.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA19515 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 98 01:42:43 -0500 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 98 01:42:03 EST From: bbrown@dkmc.org (Bob Brown) Subject: Open Letter Regarding Spam Blocking Message-Id: <9801310142.1.UUL1.3#25605@dkmc.org> To: postmaster@aol.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk The fact that AOL allows their customers to block spam domains is great! The trouble is, that's not all AOL customers use it for. I run a number of lists for alumni of my high school. Lots of AOL customers zubscribe. Often they tire of the high volume of the general list. Do they unzubscribe? Nooo... they blacklist the domain from which the list is mailed. So far, OK. I get the bounces, (*all* the lists' messages bounce because everything is blacklisted) I unzub the person from all the lists, and all is well. A pain, but not a real problem. *Then* they try to rezubscribe to one of the lower-volume lists, or they complain that their zubscription stopped. One kind person wrote to observe that our web page hadn't been updated lately and to inquire whether I am OK. (I'm not. I have the flu.) I was touched by the message, but I *can't reply to it*! Another one sends me a message about once a month saying, "I did something wrong... I want to be back on the list." I remember this person from high school, I had a crush on her, but I can't help her because she has my mail blocked! I can't even tell her why I can't help. OK, AOL... here's what I want you to do about this: Please fix your mailer system so that your customers can't send mail *to* a domain they've blocked. Give them a reasonable error message, one that explains how to remove a block, and let them decide whether to keep the block, but don't let them send me any more plaintive messages I can't do anything about! Thank you. --Bob From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 00:21:55 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA20360; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:18:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [209.157.82.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id AAA20353 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:18:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from postmodern.com (foucault.postmodern.com [209.157.82.5]) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-960422) with ESMTP id AAA26992; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:22:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34D2DF7F.A58E8B2B@postmodern.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:25:15 -0800 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > I have been threatened with physical violence a lot more often than > legal violence. I don't necessarily think this is an improvement, but > it's just as likely to change my mind... Only a few times have > situations escalated where I had to get really nasty, but one of them > is the reason why I no longer accept postings from juno.com.... Hmmmm. Was this a problem with the service itself (i.e., the sysadmins or management), or with one or more Juno users? And if the latter, why would it cause you to ban the whole domain? Was this spam-related? -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 00:52:40 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA28404; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:47:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id WAA19577 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:12:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id WAA09536; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA17850 ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:17:30 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:13:14 -0800 To: Mitchell Leben , Ray Jones From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 8:09 AM -0800 1/30/98, Mitchell Leben wrote: > This is a 'normal' list open to the public. I do not charge for > membership, and zubscription is the member's choice. Oh, just as one more aside. This is one reason why my list documentation explictly states that use of the list is a privilege given unto my users -- and that priviledge can be revoked. It might not be a strict legal protection, but it keeps people from trying to make claims that I have no ability to keep them off the list. ("I own it. You use it because I say you can. Don't like it? Start your own". Well, I say it more nicely than that, but...) Unfortunately, I've found there are times when common sense issues need to be explictly spelled out. The trick is to figure out which ones they are, and spell them out (and not build your docs so bloody large by spelling out everything that they become worthless in the other direction...) And while I think about it -- as soon as lawyers are mentioned, start Cc:ing *all* correspondence to his postmaster, and forward copies of his mail to his postmaster, too. Send the postmaster a polite note letting him know that a user on his site has threatened legal action on you, and you want the postmaster to be aware of this, because his site may become involved in the legal action, and that because you might be forced to stop accepting mail from his site if this threat becomes a reality. The practical effect of this, actually, is that the postmaster usually beats the idiot senseless. But it doesn't hurt to get a third party involved in the correspondence (and it's not an idle thing -- if you two DO go to court, the guys running *his* site are going to get dragged in, too) and perhaps helping to moderate the situation between you. And if not, at least they can't pretend to be shocked when the summons occurs. -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 05:22:01 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id FAA08101; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 05:16:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id FAA07933 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 05:15:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from default (207-172-44-161.s161.tnt3.brd.erols.com [207.172.44.161]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA23427 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 08:23:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980131082057.007b5bf0@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: bajacobi@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 08:20:57 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Barbara Jacobi Subject: Re: AOL spam controls Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:51:18 -0500, "Amy Stinson" wrote: >Nothing has changed at my end. I receive the index for myself from >another account on a different machine just fine. It seems to be >only AOL and these people are not getting their mail. > >any suggestions? I am lucky(?) enough to have an AOL account through my job through which I subscribe to my list (just one so far) so I can watch delivery times, etc. AOL is not blocking *all* mailing lists (since I get my mail), although they are painfully slow to deliver at times. So the problem is likely that the subscriber has set his/her controls to not recieve mail from certain addresses or domains. As an aside, I have blocked hotmail.com and juno.com on that account because of the shear volume of filthy spam that is sent from those domains (or spammers using them as aliases) -- upwards of 50 messages per day in the past. If the volume is not too high, I would be happy to forward a message you compose to your subscriber(s) describing why they are not receiving your lists and/or replies to their queries. That message should be sent to bajacobi@aol.com. Note - I will have to discontinue if this becomes a big job - but I'll let you know if I do. Just don't send it from juno.com or hotmail.com or it will bounce. Best regards, Barbara From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 08:52:00 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA21655; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 08:44:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from quilla.tezcat.com (quilla.tezcat.com [204.128.247.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA21563 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 08:44:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [206.230.56.44] (adamb.tezcat.com [206.230.56.44]) by quilla.tezcat.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/tezcat-96091001) with SMTP id KAA19084 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:49:12 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199801311649.KAA19084@quilla.tezcat.com> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Spam Blocking Date: Sat, 31 Jan 98 10:50:02 -0600 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v2, June 6, 1997 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 1/31/98 12:42 AM, Bob Brown wrote... >The fact that AOL allows their customers to block spam domains is >great! The trouble is, that's not all AOL customers use it for. It was originally designed just to block from people they didn't want to get mail from, mainly as a parental control. However, I know where you're going with this, and you're wrong. >I run a number of lists for alumni of my high school. Lots of AOL >customers zubscribe. Often they tire of the high volume of the >general list. Do they unzubscribe? Nooo... they blacklist the domain >from which the list is mailed. So far, OK. I get the bounces, (*all* >the lists' messages bounce because everything is blacklisted) I unzub >the person from all the lists, and all is well. A pain, but not a >real problem. > > [ snip, paragraph where they ask to be put back on the list ] >From my experiences, it's very rare for an AOL subscriber to block your list because they don't want to receive mail from it anymore. Actually, since the average AOL member (based on my observations) doesn't even know what Field the Mail Controls use to block mail (it's the Return-Path, not >From or Sender), they wouldn't succeed anyways. Instead, they're being so barraged with UCE, that they've set their mail controls to simply block all mail but a few set of addresses. It's possible that they tried to add your list to their white list, if they remembered it, but if they didn't add the Return-Path, it won't work for them. The solution, if you care, is to have instructions somewhere for AOL members on how to un-block your list. I have detailed instructions that /I/ use if anyone wants to email me privately for them. >OK, AOL... here's what I want you to do about this: Please fix your >mailer system so that your customers can't send mail *to* a domain >they've blocked. While I agree with your reasoning (though I wouldn't want it implemented for personal reasons), I don't see that working since Return-Path often has nothing to do with To. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| "Do not take life too seriously; adamb@tezcat.com | you will never get out of it alive." adamkb@aol.com | - Elbert Hubbard Finger for PGP | http://www.tezcat.com/~adamb From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 11:22:09 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA13459; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:21:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.geo.net (mail1.geo.net [166.90.101.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id KAA13355 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:21:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 9959 invoked from network); 31 Jan 1998 18:26:17 -0000 Received: from electra.znyx.com (209.0.10.2) by mail1.geo.net with SMTP; 31 Jan 1998 18:26:17 -0000 Received: from alan (alan.znyx.com [209.0.10.4]) by electra.znyx.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA01057 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:25:17 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980131102911.00935a00@electra.znyx.com> X-Sender: alan@electra.znyx.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:29:11 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Alan Deikman Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >I have been threatened with suits a handful of times over list activities. >They always go away because they have zero chance and they know it. One >of them even thought her Internet access fee paid for my list and >threatened me over that which gave me a good chuckle and made up for her >comparing me to Hitler. > >-- James Lick -- jlick@drivel.com -- http://drivel.com/jlick/ -- Just out of curiosity, what is it you did? I came into this thread late, but has anyone pointed out yet that it is *illegal* to threaten to sue someone? If you have access to any letters written by lawyers claiming damages (usually a prepatory step to filing a complaint) they ABSOLUTELY NEVER say "pay up or we will file a lawsuit." The reason is that it is against the rules to do so. What they say instead is "this is our damages -- we will consider the matter settled if you pay it -- if you do not we will consider our alternatives." Or a variation of that. Regards, -------------------------------- Alan Deikman, ZNYX Corporation alan@znyx.com From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 13:52:11 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA19936; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:58:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from quilla.tezcat.com (quilla.tezcat.com [204.128.247.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA19551 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:57:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [206.230.56.44] (adamb.tezcat.com [206.230.56.44]) by quilla.tezcat.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/tezcat-96091001) with SMTP id PAA27215 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 15:02:02 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199801312102.PAA27215@quilla.tezcat.com> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Spam Blocking Date: Sat, 31 Jan 98 15:02:53 -0600 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v2, June 6, 1997 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 1/31/98 11:29 AM, David W. Tamkin wrote... >You responded to Bob Brown's post, > >| The solution, if you care, is to have instructions somewhere for AOL >| members on how to un-block your list. I have detailed instructions that >| /I/ use if anyone wants to email me privately for them. > >How is the list manager supposed to deliver those instructions to the >AOL user? The best place to put the instructions is any place where people find out about your list, such as a web site. If you get them before they subscribe, you'll head off the problem. You can also mention it in your welcome message for the sake of people who who haven't blocked mail yet, but might in the future. Of course, this won't do any good for folks who don't save the welcome message, but that's another topic. If you have an AOL account, you can try sending them a message through the AOL mail system, if it's that important. >Bob had written, > >| >OK, AOL... here's what I want you to do about this: Please fix your >| >mailer system so that your customers can't send mail *to* a domain >| >they've blocked. > >And you replied, > >| While I agree with your reasoning (though I wouldn't want it implemented >| for personal reasons), I don't see that working since Return-Path often >| has nothing to do with To. > >What would you feel about a setup where AOL dispatches the letter anyway but >(1) warns the sender that it probably cannot be answered and (2) warns the >recipient [by adding text to the top of the body] that it probably cannot be >answered? Once again, since From and Return-Path might have nothing to do with each other, this won't work. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| "Do not take life too seriously; adamb@tezcat.com | you will never get out of it alive." adamkb@aol.com | - Elbert Hubbard Finger for PGP | http://www.tezcat.com/~adamb From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 14:37:03 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA08315; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:13:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id OAA08307 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:13:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from george.m-w.com ([206.98.43.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id IAA05664 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:30:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by m-w.com (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0) id AA00839; Wed, 28 Jan 98 11:18:37 EST Date: Wed, 28 Jan 98 11:18:37 EST From: awest@george.m-w.com (Amy West) Message-Id: <9801281618.AA00839@m-w.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: hosting services info needed again Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I asked for this info perhaps 4-6 months ago, so I apologize for the repeated inquiry. We've got a list that first maxed out a NeXT on a ISDN line (at 2000 subscribers) and now a Dec Alpha on a T-1 (at 17,000 subscribers) (both using majordomo & sendmail). We're having various porblems withour list hosting serives because of the drain on their resources. We've gotten quotes from Lsoft before, and we're going to look at them again, but is anyone here running or using a list hosting service that could handle a list that's going to continue to grow? Like to 100,000 subscribers? ---Amy West From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 20:37:52 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA27747; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:52:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id RAA22741 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:28:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from hyperreal.org by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id RAA23157; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:31:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 24448 invoked by uid 24); 1 Feb 1998 01:32:33 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980131172130.00814bf0@hyperreal.org> X-Sender: brian@hyperreal.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:21:30 -0800 To: Adam Bailey , From: Brian Behlendorf Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Spam Blocking In-Reply-To: <199801312102.PAA27215@quilla.tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 03:02 PM 1/31/98 -0600, Adam Bailey wrote: >On 1/31/98 11:29 AM, David W. Tamkin wrote... >>What would you feel about a setup where AOL dispatches the letter anyway but >>(1) warns the sender that it probably cannot be answered and (2) warns the >>recipient [by adding text to the top of the body] that it probably cannot be >>answered? > >Once again, since From and Return-Path might have nothing to do with each >other, this won't work. It's careless to say "it won't work". Giving a warning to the sender when they send mail to "user@netcom.com" and they have "netcom.com" in their block list is perfectly reasonable. I'm astonished they don't do that, actually. Adding text to the message to the recipient is probably overkill so long as the AOL user gets the warning. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- "Optimism is a strategy for making brian@apache.org a better future." - Noam Chomsky brian@hyperreal.org From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 20:43:04 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA05740; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 20:31:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id SAA11543 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:46:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [209.157.82.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id AAA24237 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:33:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from postmodern.com (foucault.postmodern.com [209.157.82.5]) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-960422) with ESMTP id AAA27006; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:37:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34D2E2FF.9D12C76B@postmodern.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:40:11 -0800 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: Richard Masoner Subject: Removing messages from list archives References: <199801302047.OAA07882@bif.cd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Richard Masoner wrote: > Have any other owners of archived lists had similar requests to remove > archived email? Yes, and I have refused all but one, referring to the mention of archives in the list "welcome" message, and the tradition of archiving Internet mailing lists. The one case where I did act (on one of my music lists) was where someone had replied by accident to the list (thinking it was a private reply) regarding a concert ticket or tape or something, and put her home address and phone number in the message, and she cited some legitimate privacy concerns. In a couple of other case people have claimed they would get fired or be in big trouble, or whatever, but I talked them out of it. One guy actually made a reasonable case, based on possible proprietary information from his company, but when I looked in the archives (this was some days later) I realized that his article had been replied to or quoted by literally dozens of other list members (this was on the greatcircle.com Firewalls list). I was unwilling to perform major surgery on the archives, and told hims that if it was a major problem he should have someone in management or legal in his company call me, and no one ever did, so I assume it wasn't that big a deal. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 20:50:19 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA27957; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:54:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from miso.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id RAA27143 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:48:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by miso.wwa.com via sendmail with stdio id for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 19:53:09 -0600 (CST) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #12 built 1997-Nov-30) Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Spam Blocking To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 19:53:09 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <199801312102.PAA27215@quilla.tezcat.com> from "Adam Bailey" at Jan 31, 98 03:02:53 pm 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 When I asked Adam Bailey, T>What would you feel about a setup where AOL dispatches the letter anyway but T>(1) warns the sender that it probably cannot be answered and (2) warns the T>recipient [by adding text to the top of the body] that it probably cannot be T>answered? He responded, B>Once again, since From and Return-Path might have nothing to do with each B>other, this won't work. I believe that Adam's meaning is, "when an AOL customer uses the return address (RFC822 From: if no Reply-To: is present) of a piece of mail and sends mail to that return address, AOL cannot know at that point whether a reply's Return-Path will be a blocked address or not, because the reply's Return-Path may differ from the destination of the outgoing letter." (That, in fact, was why I inserted "probably" up above, but Adam felt it didn't take care of the problem.) Or in other words, from the AOL customer's perspective, "the To: of my letter letter to you, which could have come from the From: of your last letter to me, may be different from the Return-Path: of your next letter to me." On a message passed through a mailing list, From and Return-Path on the same message are likely not to match each other, but that isn't the matter under consideration here. If I have guessed incorrectly, my comments below will require revision but very likely will still stand. So, as Adam was saying, B>Once again, since From and Return-Path might have nothing to do with each B>other, this won't work. That would not prevent it from working! A problem arises only if, out of Return-Path and From, one is blocked and the other is not. If both are blocked, the warning is valid; if neither is blocked, go ahead and get as epistolary as you like. This "why don't you answer my mail?" problem affects not only distributions from mailing lists but also one-on-one correspondence, and for individual email such as that, From and Return-Path nearly always point to the same address, let alone the same domain. Even for mail from lists, even if From and Return-Path differ, it will fail only when one is blocked and the other is not. (How many of us run lists where the address to which a user writes to sub- scribe and the address that appears as the Return-Path in the response, whether it is hand-sent or automated, are in different domains?) Third, blocks by people who want to receive replies or subscriptions are almost never placed against the list or the list's site but usually against the entire Internet outside AOL, as Adam acknowledged: B>If you have an AOL account, you can try sending them a message through B>the AOL mail system, if it's that important. [Sometimes a very shortsighted user makes up a whitelist, and then even another AOL account can't write to him or her ... unless whitelisting applies only to non-AOL addresses and within AOL you can either take everybody's mail or block specific screen names.] Now, for when the block is against the entire Internet outside AOL, how much mail has From XOR Return-Path at an address on AOL while the other is in a domain outside AOL? Granted, sometimes an AOL user specifically blocks the list's address as a substitute for unsubscribing. However, then he or she knows what he or she did, doesn't want mail from the list, and isn't asking for any, so there isn't a problem there. On my list the default for new subscriptions is digest, so From (I assume Adam means RFC822 From: [or possibly the return address] rather than the mbox format From_, which almost always points to the same place as Return-Path) and Return-Path will be in the same domain. Generally I've found that AOL users sophisticated enough to get non-default settings for their subscrip- tions also are aware of the meanings of their Mail Controls and they don't get into these situations. All told, in cases where the AOL user wants a reply, it must be extremely, extremely rare for one address to be blocked and the other not blocked, so the chance of a difference between From and Return-Path just isn't important. Yes, Return-Path != From is a consideration in most email matters, but (AOL user is blocking From) XOR (AOL user is blocking Return-Path) is just too darn unlikely to throw Bob's idea out wholesale. Finally, the suggested warning to the blocking AOL user can be rephrased to deal with Adam's caution for the rare case where From XOR Return-Path is blocked. Since I have never used AOL and don't know their corporate writing style, I don't want to suggest any specific wording. From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 22:53:43 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA26857; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from miso.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id WAA26711 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:05:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by miso.wwa.com via sendmail with stdio id for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 00:10:33 -0600 (CST) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #12 built 1997-Nov-30) Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: postmaster@aol.com has not helped lately. To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 00:10:33 -0600 (CST) 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 Chuq Von Rospach wrote, | I forward the bounced mail to postmaster@aol.com, and ask them to tell | the user I can't respond to a blocked account. The mail seems to get | through. And if it gets to be a big enough hassle or resource drain on | the AOL postmasters, maybe they'll fix it. | | Is there some reason why this is the wrong thing to do? Seems like | people are going through hoops when going to the site admin directly | can deal with it. The first time it happened to me (early last summer), postmaster@aol.com was very cooperative. The would-be subscriber unblocked the list and wrote again to tell me so. She's been on the list ever since; she may even have posted once or twice. The last two times postmaster@aol.com has ignored me. All I get back is an automated receipt but no action. Perhaps the requests come in so thick and fast nowadays that one needs the fame or clout of a Chuq Von Rospach to get action. From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 23:06:53 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA23562; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:51:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA23388 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:51:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.8.8/8.8.BEST) id VAA06552; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:56:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:56:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199802010556.VAA06552@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: cnorman@shell7.ba.best.com In-reply-to: <34D2E2FF.9D12C76B@postmodern.com> (mcb@postmodern.com) Subject: Re: Removing messages from list archives Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I get a few requests here and there. I tell people if they want editing they have to provide me with a list (only a few posts) of the posts in question (giving month and year and then enough info to find it with either the date, subject, etc). Few people actually provide the list. All who have had had reasonable requests (like one person who wanted me to leave his posts but delete the .sig (had his home address) from the 3 he used that .sig for). I don't mind making a few changes like that. But the person has to do the legwork for me to find the posts. I also tell people that if they don't want a post archived in the first place, they can write "DON'T PUT THIS IN THE ARCHIVES!" as the first line and *if I see it* I will delete it instead of archiving it. But I offer no guerentees with that. If I use a post I like on the webpage, I get permission first for each post. But I assume that anyone who posts agrees to have their stuff in the archives. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@best.com __________________________________________________ http://www.best.com/~cnorman From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 23:10:24 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA17087; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:24:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA16813 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:23:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA12994 ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:29:37 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199801312102.PAA27215@quilla.tezcat.com> from "Adam Bailey" at Jan 31, 98 03:02:53 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:20:00 -0800 To: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Spam Blocking Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 5:53 PM -0800 1/31/98, David W. Tamkin wrote: > Third, blocks by people who want to receive replies or subscriptions are > almost never placed against the list or the list's site but usually against > the entire Internet outside AOL, as Adam acknowledged: How I handle this -- without huge hassles on my part. I forward the bounced mail to postmaster@aol.com, and ask them to tell the user I can't respond to a blocked account. The mail seems to get through. And if it gets to be a big enough hassle or resource drain on the AOL postmasters, maybe they'll fix it. Is there some reason why this is the wrong thing to do? Seems like people are going through hoops when going to the site admin directly can deal with it. I used to see this a fair amount. Now, they're pretty rare. AOL folks still block my lists instead of unsubscribe (which is fine by me), but the complaints about lost mail don't happen very much, not like when the feature was just released. I've suggested to AOL not to allow mail to be sent to addresses that are blocked. If you think about it, *that* is simply setting up their system to be the source of serious abuse mail by a real twit. So far, they don't seem to agree with me.... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 23:17:51 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA20756; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:39:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from miso.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id VAA20514 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:38:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by miso.wwa.com via sendmail with stdio id for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:43:28 -0600 (CST) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #12 built 1997-Nov-30) Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: the unidirectionality of AOL Mail Controls To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:43:28 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980131172130.00814bf0@hyperreal.org> from "Brian Behlendorf" at Jan 31, 98 05:21:30 pm 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 Brian Behlendorf wrote, | Adding text to the message to the recipient is probably overkill | so long as the AOL user gets the warning. It would be overkill if the AOL user always noticed, read, understood, and considered the warning. But remember, we're discussing people who are per- forming the cloudy-minded act of requesting mail -- whether it is a list sub- scription or just an answer to the current letter -- from someone they've blocked. (If the AOL user sends something that does not request a response even implicitly, then the insertion I suggested is unnecessary, but how can AOL's software tell?) Can we really bet on unfailing attention to the warn- ing, comprehension of it, and sensible decisions about it from everyone who gets into the position where it's on his or her screen in the first place? Obviously, I think it will work a lot of the time, or I wouldn't have agreed with Bob Brown about it (I proposed it myself last summer), but I feel that the proportion of times that it will just wash over the sender's head or that the sender will knowingly defy it (either out of actual desire for no reply attempt or out of malice) justify a short caution to the recipient. A blurb in the text at least helps the recipient make an informed choice. He or she can then decide among trying to write anyway, reaching the sender some other way, or not responding at all. Every time you don't send mail that will end up bouncing, you save the resources to deliver it plus those to de- liver the NDN back to you, not to mention your own effort to compose and dis- patch it. PS: I never want to type, much less say, "unidirectionality" again and deeply hope that there is no such word. From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 31 23:22:00 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA16936; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:23:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA16738 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:22:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA28078 ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:29:27 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <34D2DF7F.A58E8B2B@postmodern.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:25:41 -0800 To: mcb@postmodern.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Ever Been Sued? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:25 AM -0800 1/31/98, Michael C. Berch wrote: > > situations escalated where I had to get really nasty, but one of them > > is the reason why I no longer accept postings from juno.com.... > > Hmmmm. Was this a problem with the service itself (i.e., the sysadmins or > management), or with one or more Juno users? And if the latter, why would it > cause you to ban the whole domain? Was this spam-related? Both, actually. Problem #1: Juno.com doesn't validate user information when you create an account. You go to the web site, you fill it in, you get your password. Doesn't matter if the data is correct. So take a user who decides to be a twit. you lock the account. They go to juno, fill out the form, get another account. Sign up, start mailbombing. Iterate until you get tired of screwing around with the dweeb, then do the only thing you can. Lock out the domain. Problem #2: juno.com (*unlike* AOL and hotmail) are invariably no help. In the case I'm talking about, my e-mail went completely unanswered for six bloody weeks. After six weeks, I got a single, short e-mail apologizing for taking so long to respond to my mail. Nothing on solinv issues, nothing on how to deal with future issues, nothing on policy changes, nothing but a "sorry. bye". Typical of juno, unfortunately. And since they act on the account creation side like an anonymous posting service, I treat them like one. Because they are. They have no clue who a given account belongs to -- they have a form of data about it, but there's no checking to see if any of it is correct. And guess what? Lots of times, it isn't. And as long as they allow users to create accounts at will, you can't stop a determined user from abusing your lists, short of shutting all of juno off your site. And from all discussions (and lack of them) I've had with juno, they don't care. Compare that to hotmail. It has its set of problems, but the admins return mail and deal with issues. And when I talk to them -- something happens, or at least I get a response. And I don't have to deal with the "infinite accounts by an abusive user" problem of juno.... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net)