Post by thread:[ADMIN] Rejected post

Never had one returned until the very next mail pick-up after I deleted the address to send it on to. What was it again please ?

It would seem that the rejected posts are all echoes from someone who has had their access to the list cut off by their employer. I have had a bounce with the same destination three times this morning, and all included this address line. >Return-Path: <spam_OUTowner-piclistTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> >Apparently-To: .....daveKILLspam@spam@DIGILOG.CO.UK >Delivered-To: e7df6e19-daveKILLspamDIGILOG.CO.UK >Received: (qmail 17139 invoked from network); 18 May 2000 09:07:45 -0000

Alan B Pearce wrote: > It would seem that the rejected posts are all echoes from someone who > has had their access to the list cut off by their employer. > >Apparently-To: .....daveKILLspam.....DIGILOG.CO.UK > >Delivered-To: EraseMEe7df6e19-davespam_OUTTakeThisOuTDIGILOG.CO.UK You're dead right about the mechanism. Not so much about their list access, it's generally their e-mail account in toto. It was reported to the admins a couple of days ago - not sure why they haven't killed it yet except to say they're busy guys and some of these things are due to strange mail reflections which are difficult to track. I'm not sure for example whether the listserver puts unique IDs on to each copy of each message it resends or how easy it is to match these logs again if they cause a bounce. The important thing is that until the bogus message the listserver returns to the original sender is fixed, which I am assured it will be :) soon, that senders do *NOT* re-send any messages. -- Cheers, Paul B.

Paul B. Webster VK2BZC wrote: > Alan B Pearce wrote: > > It would seem that the rejected posts are all echoes from someone who > > has had their access to the list cut off by their employer. > > > >Apparently-To: davespam_OUTDIGILOG.CO.UK > > >Delivered-To: @spam@e7df6e19-daveKILLspamDIGILOG.CO.UK > > You're dead right about the mechanism. Not so much about their list > access, it's generally their e-mail account in toto. Mail servers can get messed up - He's working the problem. Switching to "Apparently-To" for passing messages should fix it (Think it should be fixed now?) > It was reported to the admins a couple of days ago - not sure why they > haven't killed it yet except to say they're busy guys and some of these > things are due to strange mail reflections which are difficult to track. We're hardly the "Avenging Budgie" type - Family humor from childhood when my sisters' dingbat Budgie decided, for some bird-brained reason, to try to harass the family calico, dive bombing her repeatedly. My sister thought it was funny, at least until "Hoody" (Houdina Hacksaw, long story!), CAUGHT her bird, and she had to rescue it before Hoody ate it! <G> I use the term for some small-minded petty tyrants - You know, the pointy-haired kind =) We (usually at least!) try to be patient and get peoples' attention, then get the cause of the problem solved, fairly quickly - should be solved now. (We do have bad days, doesn't everyone?) BTW, folks - If/When you do get Bounces like this, if you pass full headers to me (or other Admins, I think James and Mike read headers as well), or to the <KILLspampiclist-requestKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> address, I'll get at the cause and bug them. Or they will. One common solution we try is to Set "Digest" mode on people where this is happening - Seems to work as then there's no "Sender" and we don't see multiple PICList members unhappy. So, if you have a personal home e-mail snagging server and get suddenly set to Digest, please check for e-mail from an Admin before just setting it back to Mail NoDigest, see if there's a problem - We don't change peoples' subscription settings for NO reason, and, we e-mail you to try to tell you what the problem IS, before doing anything like that! > I'm not sure for example whether the listserver puts unique IDs on to > each copy of each message it resends or how easy it is to match these > logs again if they cause a bounce. The List Engine, *Used* to include a comment "X-Passed-To" (? or something like that), in the headers - The latest revision has some GOOD improvements, but, they removed that line from the output, Drat! When tracking these, full headers are necessary, but now they just point me at the proper ISP, don't necessarily tell me which of several people there it is - Most of us are 1 to an ISP, fortunately - so usually works, but I'll ask L-Soft to undo their removing that, it was HANDY <G> Also will ask them to just plain NOT send a "Duplicate" message in this situation, just throw the message away if they've already sent it out... > The important thing is that until the bogus message the listserver > returns to the original sender is fixed, which I am assured it will be > :) soon, that senders do *NOT* re-send any messages. Exactly! The problem's that the list sends a message out to us all - someone's (at home, slightly misconfigured) e-mail server bounces a copy back to the "Send to whole list" address - and the L-Soft list engine then rejects it, mistakenly sending a message TO the original sender, thinking the original sender posted it twice; Want to get both causes of this fixed, not the symptoms! > -- > Cheers, > Paul B.

We did kill it, and emailed Dave to tell him why. Yesterday, he said he had it fixed and resubscribed. It isn't fixed so he has been dumped again and told why. Paul, your suggested replacement for the listserver message looks ok, but I'd like to tone the sarcasm down a bit, and discus it with the other list admins first. --- James Newton (PICList Admin #3) RemoveMEjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTpiclist.com 1-619-652-0593 PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org {Original Message removed}

We're checking - Mike's afraid that LSoft hard-coded the message, sadly. I'll be writing a note to L-Soft suggesting some mods! Mark James Newton wrote: {Quote hidden}> We did kill it, and emailed Dave to tell him why. Yesterday, he said he had > it fixed and resubscribed. It isn't fixed so he has been dumped again and > told why. > > Paul, your suggested replacement for the listserver message looks ok, but > I'd like to tone the sarcasm down a bit, and discus it with the other list > admins first. > > --- > James Newton (PICList Admin #3) > spamBeGonejamesnewtonspamBeGonepiclist.com 1-619-652-0593 > PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org > > {Original Message removed}