Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Workers
(September 1994)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: X.400 address 'hostile'
From: David Barr <barr @ pop . psu . edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 18:34:17 -0400
To: eric . hammond @ sdrc . com (Eric Hammond), Jared_Rhine @ hmc . edu
Cc: majordomo-workers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Sep 1994 17:42:55 CDT." <>

(from majordomo-users)
In message <>, Eric Hammond writes:
>> Hogwash.
>Disagreed.  (Obviously, or I would not have said what I said.)

Hold it.  You're both saying the same thing, yet say say you disagree.
Read his message again.

Jared and you are completely correct.  I see absolutely no reason why
Majordomo should enforce a policy which is does not apply to the
system on which it runs.

If "/" in an address is not a problem to the MTA, then it should be
configurable for Majordomo to not complain about the address.

Of course the existence of a password should not override a "hostile"
address.  An interesting alternative would be to forward the "hostile"
address (when approved by the list manager) to Owner-Majordomo and
require the the list manager manually add the address in the file.
(via edit, not by e-mail approval)

Replies to majordomo-workers, please.


Indexed By Date Previous: Re: "Approved" frenzies for big Majordomo lists (fwd)
From: "Alan K. Stebbens <>" <>
Next: Re: X.400 address 'hostile'
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: locking in the face of multiple subscribe requests
From: Brent Chapman <brent@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM>
Next: Re: X.400 address 'hostile'

Search Internet Search