On 16 Jun 2003 20:18:23 -0700 James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 12:45, Pierre Fortin wrote: > > Anne, > > > > This is an *ancient* problem... I pointed it out about 2 years ago > > IIRC-- when there were all sorts of other mail issues... it wasn't > > fixed then and probably won't be fixed now... the solution is simple > > -- don't cross post... send 2 messages... > > Pierre, > I wonder if this "bug" isn't intentional ... by taking the first > "address" in a cross posted e-mail only, it's a great way to prevent > cross posts and spam related cross posts. ... > > James How does that old saying go...? Something about not attributing foresight to an unexpected [side-]effect... If this was intentional, then that intention missed the mark of reducing traffic by not ignoring the extra addresses and simply using the first one N times... For historical perspective, see below for a discussion on my analysis (sent Dec 19,2000 -- 2 1/2 years ago...) about the list problems... Re-reading that old post, I have to wonder if those who don't see their posts are actually hitting a possible "fix" for "Cause 3a"... i.e., do those posts contain the list name 2+ times in the To: field? I suppose it's true that history repeats... > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:14:54 +0100 Anne Wilson > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Earlier today I sent a post to the newbie list and the expert list, > > > saying that we should get started on a hardward compatibility list > > > on the TWiki site. Cross-posted, you understand (not a thing I > > > normally do, but it seemed justified at the time). > > > > > > I received my two copies, which my filters put both into the newbie > > > folder - or so I thought. However, Eric then mailed me about this. > > > > > > You may remember that he has brought up this subject before. I > > > think that it was generally thought that he was mistaken (I admit I > > > thought so too), but when he raised the question I checked the full > > > headers for the posts. *Both* of them said > > > > > > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > I had thought it strange that no-one from the expert list had > > > answered, but it seems Eric is right - it never got there. > > > > > > An hour or two later, Greg posted to the newbie list that he had > > > started the page. I forwarded his post to the expert list, for > > > information. That was perhaps 5 hours ago. I has not shown up. > > > > > > We seem to have serious problems here. > > > > > > Anne [There may be better data from the archives; but this was the first message I found in mine...] --------------------- From Dec 19,2000 Rusty, Since you have the most complete set of questions... :^) Rusty Carruth wrote: > > Pierre Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have analyzed just over 250 messages from Cooker and Expert lists. > > Of those, there were 20 duplicated and 3 triplicated messages. > > I'm impressed! I quit after 2 or 4 ;-) I just finally got tired to seeing all the "why am I getting duplicates...?" posts; asking the same question over and over does not solve the problem... you gotta dig deep[er]... :> > > From my short sampling, these are the causes of message replication I > > came up with... > > Did you happen to attach a count to each of these causes? That might be > very enlightening. I didn't feel the count mattered 'cuz a computer can make the same mistake forever without complaining; fix the cause and it'll behave regardless of counts... > > CAUSE 1: "user 500"@yavin.mandrax.org: > > I am of the opinion that user 500 is the 'expert list' > expander/forwarder/whatever_ you_want_to_call_it. Yes; just pointing out that it was at the core of the issues. > > CAUSE 2a: sender is using M$ Outlook Express configured to send an > > "Envelope-To:" header. ... > > > > CAUSE 2b: sender is using "Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)" with > > a"Reply-To:" header. See cause 2a for solution. > > But aren't these just triggers to the problem in user 500? Unless I've > missed something, it seems that the right solution is to fix whatever > user 500 is doing... Correct; though if we can reduce the problems in the meantime... However, the following ones require a smarter set of rules... > > CAUSE 3a: sending to more than one addressee. > > Examples: > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], <self>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], <self>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > So [EMAIL PROTECTED] == [EMAIL PROTECTED], eh? Wow, learn > something new every day ;-) Does the '<self>' entry seem to have > anything to do with it? <self> was just to indicate that the sender was mailing a copy back to themselves to push a copy of their posts through their filters for filing. > > CAUSE 3b: sending to both "To:" and "Cc:" This is where my post got caught... though in my case, I sent: To: cooker... Cc: expert... Which means that when you think you are cross-posting, the list server simply sends both copies to the "To:" list; I missed this variation in my original post. > > CAUSE 3c: sending with BCC: which is not detectable from the messages > > we get. > > Actually, I have another theory. [snip] > Perhaps, in bad weather, the number of errors increases and we start > getting disconnects AFTER the email has actually been queued on the > remote machine, but the list sender thinks not. > > Just a wild stab in the dark (OUCH!). This *might* explain those that had no apparent reason for replication... :? > Finally - I'd be willing to set up a userid (on my home machine, [snip] I'd be surprised if we need to go there... I've gotten a response from Denis, the maintainer of the rules and have already replied to him... Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this RSN (real soon now)... Pierre > (yikes, I may have to buy a new hard drive to hold it all!, and I'm sure > my 44k dialin will get overloaded - oh, well, its all for the cause ;-) > (and I hope we won't need it for ^TTOO long, also!) > > rusty > > Rusty Carruth Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
