On Tuesday 17 Jun 2003 1:48 pm, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2003 20:18:23 -0700 James Sparenberg
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 12:45, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> 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...
>
It does make interesting reading.
> 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?
>
For the record, this was mine:
To: newbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 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.
>
Received: by yavin.mandrax.org (Postfix, from userid 500)
id 680C480393; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 06:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
> > > CAUSE 2a: sender is using M$ Outlook Express configured to
> > > send an "Envelope-To:" header. ...
> > >
Nope
> > > CAUSE 2b: sender is using "Internet Mail Service
> > > (5.5.2650.21)" with a"Reply-To:" header. See cause 2a for
> > > solution.
> >
Nope
> > 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]
> >
Two addresses, but not the same, newbie and expert lists
> > 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.
>
This seems to be acting the same way.
> > > CAUSE 3c: sending with BCC: which is not detectable from the
> > > messages we get.
> >
> > Actually, I have another theory.
>
Nope
> Hopefully we can
> get to the bottom of this RSN (real soon now)...
>
Yes, well, he did say 'hopefully'
Little has change, heh? Well, thanks for the info.
Anne
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
