From majordomo-workers-owner Tue Dec 12 15:35:35 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA16850; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:22:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from thelab.hub.org (CDR22-166.accesscable.net [24.138.22.166]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE6B417E8B for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:22:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by thelab.hub.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBCNtjM74985; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:55:45 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: scrappy owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:55:44 -0400 (AST) From: The Hermit Hacker To: majordomo-workers@GreatCircle.COM, mj2-dev@csf.colorado.edu Subject: aliasing/forwarding loop broken ... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: majordomo-workers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk read the FAQ and it shows: ============================= 2.12 - I get "aliasing/forwarding loop broken" [ Reported by Wade Williams ] Some people have noted sendmail will generate a bounce message if you send to a list, but the list file is empty (there are no subscribers). Add a subscriber to the list and the error should go away. You will also get this error if the permissions on the list file for that list in the lists directory are too strict. If the list directory or list file is not readable by sendmail, you will also get the error "Cannot open /path/to/lists/listname: Permission denied". See Section 2.1 above for the full discussion of how to correctly set permissions on directories and files within Majordomo. ================================ yet this doesn't sound like it applies to Mj2 ... So, what should I be looking at? The problem is being seen in: ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... Deferred: Connection refused by penguin.indexc.com. ... while talking to serv164.ghoulnet.com.: >>> RCPT To: <<< 550 ... User unknown 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown 554 5.4.6 ... aliasing/forwarding loop broken (11 aliases deep; 10 max) 554 5.4.6 ... aliasing/forwarding loop broken the alias in the aliases file look okay: # Aliases for pgsql-admin at postgresql.org pgsql-admin: "|/usr/local/majordomo/bin/mj_enqueue -r -d postgresql.org -l pgsql-admin" pgsql-admin-request: "|/usr/local/majordomo/bin/mj_enqueue -q -d postgresql.org -l pgsql-admin" pgsql-admin-owner: "|/usr/local/majordomo/bin/mj_enqueue -o -d postgresql.org -l pgsql-admin" owner-pgsql-admin: pgsql-admin-owner # End aliases for pgsql-admin at postgresql.org now, owners for that list is set to: Majordomo>configshow pgsql-admin owners ====================================================== # The first two lines of each description contain data about # the configuration setting. # Setting Name /Possible Values/ # (Default Value) [Data Type] # owners # (empty) [address_array] # Who owns this list or majordomo installation? Majordomo will internally # forward mail received at the -owner address to all of these addresses. configset pgsql-admin owners <; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:22:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by epithumia.math.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA20707; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:57:05 -0600 To: The Hermit Hacker Cc: majordomo-workers@GreatCircle.COM, mj2-dev@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: aliasing/forwarding loop broken ... References: From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 12 Dec 2000 18:57:04 -0600 In-Reply-To: The Hermit Hacker's message of "Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:55:44 -0400 (AST)" Message-ID: Lines: 25 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: majordomo-workers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "THH" == The Hermit Hacker writes: THH> while talking to serv164.ghoulnet.com.: THH> >>>> RCPT To: THH> <<< 550 ... User unknown THH> 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown THH> 554 5.4.6 ... aliasing/forwarding loop THH> broken (11 aliases deep; 10 max) THH> 554 5.4.6 ... aliasing/forwarding loop THH> broken Are you seeing this "aliasing/forwarding loop" thing in conjunction with any other kind of bounce? Can you send a message from somewhere to pgsql-admin-owner and pgsql-admin-owner+M284 and actually see it forwarded properly? How are you actually seeing this bounce? If it was a problem local to you, you wouldn't get it at the list owner address. You might get it at your postmaster address. My best guess is that those messages are coming from the remote end and are due to some serious misconfiguration there. If you can get messages to your list owner then I'd say your site is OK. - J< From majordomo-workers-owner Thu Dec 14 00:20:32 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA08921; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 00:04:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from clifford.inch.com (clifford.inch.com [216.223.192.27]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6AE517E8B for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 00:04:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from omar@localhost) by clifford.inch.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) id DAA24658 for majordomo-workers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 03:51:58 -0500 Message-ID: <20001214035157.A24089@clifford.inch.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 03:51:57 -0500 From: Omar Thameen To: majordomo-workers@greatcircle.com Subject: Use of the "Sender:" header Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i Sender: majordomo-workers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk What's the de facto standard for the use of the "Sender:" header? I'm asking because Majordomo 1.94.4 sets the "Sender:" and the envelope address to the same value as set in the list configuration file (typically owner-listname@domain.com). I thought nothing of this until I was made aware that Outlook (not Outlook Express) reports that the message is from the field in the Sender: header when you open an email message in a separate window (i.e., double-clicking on the summary line). Some list members fine it confusing to see what normally is a "behind-the-scenes" email address. I was ready to think that Microsoft was displaying an inappropriate header and making my life difficult, but in the RFC's, I found (using the useful informational RFC http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/mail-headers/mail-headers.html ): RFC822, 4.2.2 This field contains the authenticated identity of the AGENT (person, system or process) that sends the message. [...] Since the critical function served by the "Sender" field is identification of the agent responsible for sending mail and since computer programs cannot be held accountable for their behavior, it is strongly recommended that when a computer pro- gram generates a message, the HUMAN who is responsible for that program be referenced as part of the "Sender" field mail- box specification. RFC1036, 2.2.2 This field is present only if the submitter manually enters a "From" line. It is intended to record the entity responsible for submitting the message to the network. It should be verified by the software at the submitting host. I'm guessing that Mj probably interpreted the MLM to be the AGENT, and I know that the owner-listname address is supposed to be a human, so the defaults for Mj are reasonable. However, I've been trying to change the envelope address to something like "bounces-listname@domain.com" as a way to filter out NDN's and auto-unsubscribe the invalid addresses while maintaining owner-listname as a way to reach a person. Unfortunately, this had the effect of changing the "Sender" as well and producing a less palatable displayed address in Outlook. The other stipulations for the "Sender" field seem to indicate that the originating email address would be equally appropriate, as this would satisfy the condition of being a HUMAN and the entity that submitted the message to the network. Thus, I'm wondering if there are any real consequences to modifying Mj to exclude the "Sender" or to use the "From:" address. Any opinions? Omar From majordomo-workers-owner Thu Dec 14 14:34:14 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA21697; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:23:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from clifford.inch.com (clifford.inch.com [216.223.192.27]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B2A17EB8 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:23:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from omar@localhost) by clifford.inch.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) id SAA28642; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:10:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20001214181000.A26970@clifford.inch.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:10:00 -0500 From: Omar Thameen To: Dan Liston Cc: majordomo-workers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Use of the "Sender:" header References: <20001214035157.A24089@clifford.inch.com> <3A39231D.BC181A79@netscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <3A39231D.BC181A79@netscape.com>; from Dan Liston on Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 01:44:29PM -0600 Sender: majordomo-workers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk What I was really thinking of doing was separating the envelope address from the "Sender" address so I could have non-delivery notifications go to the envelope (for piping through a program or easy filtering) while preserving the "Sender" as owner-listname. To change the envelope, I just need to change $mailer in the majordomo.cf file, right? Could you elaborate on why removing the sender breaks the RFC? The RFCs seemed pretty ambiguous on the function of "Sender", one stating that it's the agent that submitted the message to the network, and another stating that it should be a human. I realize that these 2 conditions aren't mutually exclusive since the owner- address is supposed to be a person (don't know the RFC offhand). I could see where the agent would be Mj, but I could also see where the original author could be construed as submitting the message. In the latter case, I envision the function of "Sender" to be clarification that, for example, user@work_address.com sent the message, but changed the "From:" line to be user@home_address.com. Omar On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 01:44:29PM -0600, Dan Liston wrote: > You are basically in control of your list service. If your outlook > users are getting confused by a header, you can A) educate them, B) > suggest they use a different client, or C) break the RFC to appease > them. > > Easiest solution? (C)! > > In the resend script, you can comment out the line > print OUT "Sender: $sender\n"; > In majordomo-1.94.5 this is line 749. > > Most people that subscribe to a list recognize there will be a > difference in the way a message from that list looks. They will > even use that difference as a quick way to identify those > messages or filter them into specific folders. Removing the > "Sender: " header has not been seen as detrimental for others > using the same trick. The choice is yours. > > Dan Liston > > Omar Thameen wrote: > > > > What's the de facto standard for the use of the "Sender:" header? > > > > I'm asking because Majordomo 1.94.4 sets the "Sender:" and the envelope > > address to the same value as set in the list configuration file (typically > > owner-listname@domain.com). I thought nothing of this until I was made > > aware that Outlook (not Outlook Express) reports that the message is > > from the field in the Sender: header when you open an email message in > > a separate window (i.e., double-clicking on the summary line). > > > > Some list members fine it confusing to see what normally is a > > "behind-the-scenes" email address. I was ready to think that Microsoft > > was displaying an inappropriate header and making my life difficult, > > but in the RFC's, I found (using the useful informational RFC > > http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/mail-headers/mail-headers.html ): > > > > RFC822, 4.2.2 > > This field contains the authenticated identity of the AGENT > > (person, system or process) that sends the message. > > > > [...] > > Since the critical function served by the "Sender" field is > > identification of the agent responsible for sending mail and > > since computer programs cannot be held accountable for their > > behavior, it is strongly recommended that when a computer pro- > > gram generates a message, the HUMAN who is responsible for > > that program be referenced as part of the "Sender" field mail- > > box specification. > > > > RFC1036, 2.2.2 > > This field is present only if the submitter manually enters a "From" > > line. It is intended to record the entity responsible for > > submitting the message to the network. It should be verified by the > > software at the submitting host. > > > > I'm guessing that Mj probably interpreted the MLM to be the AGENT, and I > > know that the owner-listname address is supposed to be a human, so the > > defaults for Mj are reasonable. However, I've been trying to change > > the envelope address to something like "bounces-listname@domain.com" as a > > way to filter out NDN's and auto-unsubscribe the invalid addresses while > > maintaining owner-listname as a way to reach a person. Unfortunately, > > this had the effect of changing the "Sender" as well and producing a > > less palatable displayed address in Outlook. > > > > The other stipulations for the "Sender" field seem to indicate that the > > originating email address would be equally appropriate, as this would > > satisfy the condition of being a HUMAN and the entity that submitted > > the message to the network. > > > > Thus, I'm wondering if there are any real consequences to modifying Mj > > to exclude the "Sender" or to use the "From:" address. Any opinions? > > > > Omar From majordomo-workers-owner Sun Dec 24 09:37:00 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA21779; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:26:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.p-i-s.com (mail.p-i-s.com [62.0.49.136]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0319117EB0 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:26:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 14694 invoked by uid 510); 24 Dec 2000 18:03:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20001224180321.14693.qmail@mail.p-i-s.com> From: To: majordomo-workers@greatcircle.com Subject: 2 mailing list application on same server Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 18:03:21 GMT Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: majordomo-workers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dear All, I am using ezmlm mailing list and I am planing to install majordomo on same server. the server is having qmail MTA. the ezmlm is being used by qmail users. will installing majordomo affect the functionality of ezmlm. -- Best Regards Walid Kassab From majordomo-workers-owner Fri Dec 29 14:19:13 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA07523; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:04:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from thelab.hub.org (SHW2-220.accesscable.net [24.71.145.220]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361B717EAE for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:04:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by thelab.hub.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBTMejL29835; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:40:45 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: scrappy owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:40:45 -0400 (AST) From: The Hermit Hacker To: majordomo-workers@GreatCircle.COM, mj2-dev@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Problem in mj_wwwadm in Majordomo2 ... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: majordomo-workers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk If I put text in the text box when Accepting a posting, it isn't sending that to the end user ... just says 'User is not notified' ... If I put text in a message I'm rejecting, it doesn't notify either, but if I don't, it does ... Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org From majordomo-workers-owner Fri Dec 29 14:49:17 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA07787; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:46:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from thelab.hub.org (SHW2-220.accesscable.net [24.71.145.220]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF98E17EAE for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:46:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by thelab.hub.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBTNMC930632; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 19:22:12 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: scrappy owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 19:22:12 -0400 (AST) From: The Hermit Hacker To: majordomo-workers@GreatCircle.COM, mj2-dev@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Bounce detected (list pgsql-announce) from jkintree@core.com (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/Mixed; BOUNDARY="----------=_978131211-30666-40" Content-ID: Sender: majordomo-workers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. ------------=_978131211-30666-40 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-ID: Content-Disposition: INLINE How is it that bounce detection on something like this isn't picking up the right address? "jkintree@megsinet.net", listed under 'these addresses had permanent fatal errors' is the right address, and I'm guessing that jkintree@core.com is something that its being forward to from there? Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:06:51 -0500 (EST) From: majordomo-owner@postgresql.org To: pgsql-announce-owner@postgresql.org Subject: Bounce detected (list pgsql-announce) from jkintree@core.com Detected a bounce of message #25, list pgsql-announce. (bounce type DSN) User: jkintree@core.com Subscribed: no Status: failure Diagnostic: X-Unix; 67 Bounce statistics for this user: Bounces last 24 hours: 1 Bounces last 7 days: 1 Bounces last 30 days: 5 Consecutive messages bounced: 5 Percentage of messages bounced: 100 Bounce rules said: inform. The bounce message is attached below. ------------=_978131211-30666-40 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: Original message Content-Disposition: INLINE Received: from out4.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (out4.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net [169.207.1.77]) by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBTMr6L35850 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:53:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx8.mx.voyager.net (mx8.mx.voyager.net [216.93.66.87]) by out4.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBTMr6L39947 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:53:06 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost) by mx8.mx.voyager.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBTMr6n47224; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:53:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:53:06 -0500 (EST) From: Mail Delivery Subsystem Message-Id: <200012292253.eBTMr6n47224@mx8.mx.voyager.net> To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="eBTMr6n47224.978130386/mx8.mx.voyager.net" Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) This is a MIME-encapsulated message --eBTMr6n47224.978130386/mx8.mx.voyager.net The original message was received at Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:53:05 -0500 (EST) from webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- (reason: addressee unknown) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- mail.local: User unknown: jkintree@core.com 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown --eBTMr6n47224.978130386/mx8.mx.voyager.net Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; mx8.mx.voyager.net Received-From-MTA: DNS; webmail.postgresql.org Arrival-Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:53:05 -0500 (EST) Final-Recipient: RFC822; jkintree@core.com Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Diagnostic-Code: X-Unix; 67 Last-Attempt-Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:53:06 -0500 (EST) --eBTMr6n47224.978130386/mx8.mx.voyager.net Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers Return-Path: Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) by mx8.mx.voyager.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBTMr5n47212 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:53:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBTMoTL35629; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:50:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from pgsql-announce-owner+M25@postgresql.org) Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBTMR6L32587 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:27:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from pgsql-announce-owner@postgresql.org) Received: from thelab.hub.org ([24.71.145.220]) by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBMJbA623538 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:37:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from pr@pgsql.com) Received: from localhost (pr@localhost) by thelab.hub.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBMHWfa79429; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:32:41 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from pr@pgsql.com) X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: pr owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:32:41 -0400 (AST) From: Corporate Communications X-Sender: pr@thelab.hub.org Reply-To: geoff@pgsql.com To: scrappy@hub.org Subject: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL, Inc. Releases Open Source Replication & Database Conversion Tools Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-announce-owner@postgresql.org --eBTMr6n47224.978130386/mx8.mx.voyager.net-- ------------=_978131211-30666-40-- From majordomo-workers-owner Fri Dec 29 21:19:13 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA10870; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 21:10:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from epithumia.math.uh.edu (epithumia.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386E517EAE for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 21:10:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by epithumia.math.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05570; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:47:09 -0600 To: The Hermit Hacker Cc: majordomo-workers@GreatCircle.COM, mj2-dev@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Bounce detected (list pgsql-announce) from jkintree@core.com (fwd) References: From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 29 Dec 2000 23:47:08 -0600 In-Reply-To: The Hermit Hacker's message of "Fri, 29 Dec 2000 19:22:12 -0400 (AST)" Message-ID: Lines: 15 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: majordomo-workers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "THH" == The Hermit Hacker writes: THH> How is it that bounce detection on something like this isn't picking THH> up the right address? Something has mangled the bounce beyond the point where I can read it. (Look at the raw message; I've never seen mangling that bad before.) Anyway, the bounce type is "DSN", so we are trusting the DSN to include the proper information and are not even looking in the human-readable portion of the message. The DSN may be busted, or it may include other possible addresses in atoms that we don't parse (but could, if I had a copy of the whole bounce that hasn't been mangled). - J<