Jason Gunthorpe writes ("Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]' etc. blackhole"):
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 6. We insist that [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be an alias for
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Ok, I just did that.
thanks.
> > 7. We insist that [EMAIL PROTECTED] should either bounce or be an
> > alias for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hmm, someone else will have to do that. I'm not willing to fiddle with
> murphy since I have not studied the new setup.
Err, yes, I ought to ask listmaster about that.
> Are you sure this is true? I didn't find any mention of a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> address after a few mins of random grepping, so this might be a general
> black hole for all unmatched lists addresses.
I've sent a test mail and we'll see what happens to it.
> > 10. Our Chairman has made informal requests, including mails to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] to correct this problem, and engaged in
>
> Must have just got forgotten.. Not sure, I can't read -admin these days,
> it gets too much spam.
:-(
> > 16. Mail for all unknown local parts @d.o is currently accepted.
..
> You found this is all untrue right? The relays will do this, but AFICT the
> primary should not.
Yes.
Thanks,
Ian.
