On 2023-01-14, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Saturday, 14 January 2023 07:00:29 GMT Nuno Silva wrote: >> On 2023-01-13, Peter Humphrey wrote: >> > Hello list, >> > >> > Ever since the new year I've been getting a bounce message from this list >> > - 19 of them so far. The first of those listed one message twice, most of >> > the others six times. The message was 200359. >> > >> > I don't know what that message was, but why is the system Out There > having >> > such a hard time with it? >> >> Was the message from the list software or from a Microsoft system? > > I don't know - I haven't received it as far as I know. The only archive > entries I've found are of this conversation.
And *now* I haven't received one of these messages I was talking about (which would usually appear for every post of mine to the list, albeit possibly delayed by a few hours), so I guess either the forwarding problem was fixed or that person is not subscribed to the list anymore. >> There's possibly one subscriber that has configured their >> Exchange/Outlook account to forward e-mails to a Gmail account, and >> forwarding as implemented by Microsoft apparently isn't done correctly >> and so "SPF" checks run by Gmail are failing. > > Hmm. Would that cause the message to me to fail, in particular? No, in the case I was writing about, it'd only cause you to get these failure messages/reports delivered to you, I think precisely because of the incorrect Microsoft forwarding implementation that'd present you as the sender. So it is delivery *to* you that's failing? Hm, seeing you mentioned one of these message numbers that are internal to the list, I think I now understand what kind of bounce message you're talking about, sorry for the confusion. Now was there (I recall asking about this previously, but I forgot what the answer was) a way to get a message-ID from that internal number, or at least a way to get the address of the message's archive copy on the gentoo website? >> I tried to send a message to this list about this topic back in November >> but it never made through, perhaps it was filtered because it quoted >> some of the error messages. -- Nuno Silva
