Searching \ for 'PICLIST Administrativa' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'PICLIST Administrativa'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'PICLIST Administrativa'
1999\02\08@233730 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
(Posted on Jory's behalf to help things work better.)

 People, we know there's problems - PLEASE, Please don't keep posting
again and again with different subjects, the same post.  Your posts are
GETTING THROUGH.  And it confuses people as to which post you want us to
reply to.

 Just post once, accept that you'll quite possibly get a (spurious)
error message, and expect that likely as not the mail server will post
your message twice anyways (We got prollems, but sending MORE messages
won't do anything but make this worse, changing the subject line will
just cause another error message to come to you - if you want umpteen
error messages & a annoyed bunch of engineers on the PICList, so be it
<G>)

 CC'ing this to Jory for his info, hoping it gets solved soon <G>

 Mark

1999\02\09@004930 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
At 20:34 02/08/99 -0800, Mark Willis wrote:
>  People, we know there's problems - PLEASE, Please don't keep posting
>again and again with different subjects, the same post.  Your posts are
>GETTING THROUGH.

i don't remember the exact command, but there is a command you can send to
the list server which enables that your own messages get sent back to you
(by default this is disabled). as long as this is going like it does, you
might want to enable this option -- then you get a confirmation that your
message got through despite the "rejected" messages.

ge

1999\02\09@021406 by Larry Dewey

flavicon
face
At 09:48 PM 2/8/99 -0800, you wrote:
>At 20:34 02/08/99 -0800, Mark Willis wrote:
>>  People, we know there's problems - PLEASE, Please don't keep posting
>>again and again with different subjects, the same post.  Your posts are
>>GETTING THROUGH.
>
>i don't remember the exact command, but there is a command you can send to
>the list server which enables that your own messages get sent back to you
>(by default this is disabled). as long as this is going like it does, you
>might want to enable this option -- then you get a confirmation that your
>message got through despite the "rejected" messages.
>
>ge
>
>

It's SET PICLIST REPRO

Larry

1999\02\09@022027 by erik

flavicon
face
Here is a portion of the PIC list confirmation notice I received when I
signed on.
As seen below, the command would be "SET PICLIST REPRO" or "SET PICLIST
ACK NOREPRO"


You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF PICLIST"
command
to spam_OUTLISTSERVTakeThisOuTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU (or .....LISTSERVKILLspamspam@spam@MITVMA.BITNET). You can also
tell
LISTSERV how you want  it to confirm the receipt of  messages you send
to
the list.  If you  do not trust  the system, send  a "SET  PICLIST
REPRO"
command and LISTSERV will  send you a copy of your  own messages, so
that
you can see that  the message was distributed and did  not get damaged
on
the  way. After  a while  you  may find  that this  is getting
annoying,
especially if  your mail program  does not tell  you that the  message
is
from you when it  informs you that new mail has  arrived from PICLIST.
If
you send  a "SET PICLIST ACK  NOREPRO" command, LISTSERV will  mail you
a
short acknowledgement instead, which will  look different in your
mailbox
directory. With most mail programs you will know immediately that this
is
an  acknowledgement  you  can  read  later. Finally,  you  can  turn
off
acknowledgements completely with "SET PICLIST NOACK NOREPRO".

Following  instructions from  the list  owner, your  subscription
options
have been set to "MIME" rather than the usual LISTSERV defaults. For
more
information about subscription options, send a "QUERY PICLIST" command
to
LISTSERVspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU (or .....LISTSERVKILLspamspam.....MITVMA.BITNET).

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1999\02\09@083630 by paulb

flavicon
face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> I don't remember the exact command, but there is a command you can
> send to the list server which enables that your own messages get sent
> back to you (by default this is disabled).

 As others have said, SET PICLIST REPRO

 But this must be sent to the listserver, *not* the list.  What's the
bet we get half a dozen postings of this to the list?

> as long as this is going like it does, you might want to enable this
> option -- then you get a confirmation that your message got through
> despite the "rejected" messages.

 I see no reason whatsoever to do so.  As best I can see, *No-one* is
getting "rejected" messages, they are *already* getting *confirmatory*
replies.

 What is so absolutely, awfully infuriating about the problem is the
stubborn refusal of people to *read* the messages they get.  They look
at them briefly and presume, but don't actually read them.  That said,
it's understandable given the awful "block" (Justified) format of the
message, 8 or 9 solid lines of apparently conflicting information.

 You may actually receive either or *both* of two sorts of message,
*neither* of which makes any suggestion you should post again!

 The error-message from the list-server *DOES NOT SAY* that your
message wasn't transferred, or didn't "get through".  Those who actually
*read* it find what it actually says is that your posting was received
by the list-server *more than once* and was distributed the first time.

 Of course, you didn«t post it more than once to start with, so it was
obviously not your fault, but must have been an "echo" somewhere and of
course this matter is still under investigation.  The list is telling
you it has a *safety feature* to prevent messages being sent out more
than once.

 Therefore, as it *has* distributed it already, you shouldn«t post it
*again*.  This message goes on to say if you *really, really, really*
want to subject the list to *extra* copies of your posting, you have to
change it around to get past its protective function.  But you *don«t*
want to do this!

 The second sort of message says that a posting couldn«t be delivered
somewhere, *because the recipient no longer exists*.

 This message is *not* from the listserver, but from some long-forsaken
spot in the wilds of the Internet, not even remotely connected with the
listserver.  It's impossible your message would need to stop off at this
site to arrive at the listserver, so it's obviously been passed on and
*everyone else* on the list has received the posting, so you don«t need
to send it again.

 Not only that, but the message is telling you explicitly that no
matter *how many* times you send, it will *never* get to this particular
recipient because ... they no longer exist!  It«s not fair to spam the
rest of the list just to test that out.
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1999\02\09@182315 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
At 00:03 02/10/99 +1000, Paul B. Webster VK2BZC wrote:
>Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>
>> I don't remember the exact command, but there is a command you can
>> send to the >>> list server <<< which enables that your own messages get
sent

>  But this must be sent to the listserver, *not* the list.  What's the
>bet we get half a dozen postings of this to the list?

haven't seen a single one, so far :)  

>  I see no reason whatsoever to do so.

so feel free not to do so. i have it set up like that because i like it.
and i don't see how this could possibly bother anyone.

>  Therefore, as it *has* distributed it already, you shouldn«t post it
>*again*.

i guess i never posted twice to the list, did i?

i may have sent one or another message to both the list and the author to
whom i replied though, because i use the "reply to all" function in order
to get the name of the person to whom i respond in the message (as above),
and i may have forgotten to delete the additional recipient once in a
while. sorry for that, if that's the case and it bothered you.

ge

1999\02\10@042743 by paulb

flavicon
face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

>>  But this must be sent to the listserver, *not* the list.  What's the
>> bet we get half a dozen postings of this to the list?
> haven't seen a single one, so far :)

 Now *that* worries me!  Suggests no-one, or no-one who actually needs
to, reads messages entitled "PICLIST Administrativa"! :)

 (Regarding SET PICLIST REPRO)
> so feel free not to do so.  I have it set up like that because I like
> it.  And I don't see how this could possibly bother anyone.

 I have no problem with that whatsoever.  My point was simply that the
occurrence of these spurious "delivery error" messages is in no way,
shape or form, an indication of any shortcoming of the listserver in
delivering messages.

 The listserver and the whole forwarding structure is in fact doing
absolutely fine, distributing the list messages with the utmost
reliability.  Whilst the listserver may be *generating* supervisory
messages, all the "delivery error" messages are *caused* by an
infinitessimal minority of dysfunctional (but possibly deliberately)
systems which are *quite* peripheral to the orderly distribution of the
list.

 The point is then that nothing about the "delivery error" messages
indicates *any* need for reassurance, temporary *or* long-standing, that
posted messages are getting through the list.  Correctly seen, they are
themselves temporary acknowledgements of messages passing correctly.

 You or anyone may certainly choose to SET PICLIST REPRO for your
curiousity and it certainly bothers no-one, but the "delivery error"
messages should play *no* part in that decision.  That's all. (Whew! :)

> I guess I never posted twice to the list, did I?

 I made, nor wished to make, no suggestion that Gerhard did any such
thing.

 Pointless it likely is, as I suspect new users or new posters
are probably too single-minded on their current problem to read very
much in the way of how-to.s or read-me.s, but I wished to clarify the
true significance of the messages under discussion and to say "Don't
Panic!", the list is working 100% effectively and correctly, there is no
need whatsoever to take any evasive or corrective action, just
understand what they mean, and then do no more than delete them.
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...