Apologies for sending this on list, but attempts to
communicate using a guessed list owner address failed
but didn't bounce and the ISP that is the target of
the relevant MX records says they are no longer customers
and disclaims responsiblity.
Ever since I subscribed to the list, every posting I
make, and I assume every posting anyone else makes,
receives a bounce like the following. Unfortunately
something (probably Exchange here - not my choice)
strips the headers from the bounced message, so I
can't work out who is forwarding this.
However, someone is using broken mailing software to
forward contributions to the list to an invalid
address. Some software in the chain is broken. The
forwarding software should have set its own envelope
address to catch bounces, and definitely not copied the
header From: to the envelope. Jaring should bounce to
the envelope address, and the list should set the
list owner as the envelope address (Exchange/Outlook
strips the envelope, so I can't tell whether there is
a problem with the list, but, generally, Unix based list
software gets it right).
This has been happening since at least late September.
--
--------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 12:28 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: deanna.my: host
> not found)
>
> The original message was received at Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:27:41 +0800 (MYT)
> from root@localhost
>
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> 550 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Host unknown (Name server: deanna.my: host not
> found) <<ATT17231.TXT>> <<RE: NASM Licence>>
ATT17231.TXT
> From: Nelson Rush [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Julian Hall said that portions of code from NASM may be used in GPL'd
> code,
> but that the portions included remain under the NASM license and not the
> GPL. He pointed to Section VII for reference.
>
[DJW:] That would appear to make the resulting licence
to distribute void under clause 7 of the GPL; any
redistribution would be a copyright violation for the
GPLed parts.
--
--------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
>
