On 12/10/2009 11:20 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote: > Tanstaafl wrote: >> I subscribed to the OOo users list from my work email address. We >> use an outsourced anti-spam service (webroot), and use their system >> for our outbound relay host. Well, webroot uses what is called BATV >> address tagging, to minimize/eliminate backscatter problems - and >> it works very well for this:
<snip> > To unsubscribe your old account, you'll need to use the indirect > form. The normal process uses the "From" (which in your case has the > BATV prefix) and tries to unsubscribe that, but of course you were > not subscribed by that name. If messages are coming to you from the > list (as opposed to the cc'ed versions you've gotten because you > appear to be unsubscribed), you probably subscribed prior to the BATV > implementation, Nope, I definitely subbed *after* the BATV (we've been using them for years, and I only subscribed a week or so ago). Hmmm... after reading the rest, maybe you meant 'after' not 'prior to' above? > and can use the indirect form to unsubscribe: > [email protected]. From > there, you can reply to the unsubscribe confirmation and the new BATV > prefix won't matter. Tried that, didn't work. > Otherwise, your subscription would have been established using the > then-current BATV prefix, and you'll have to look at the Return-Path > header of one of the messages *directly from the list* and dig it out > of there for use in the indirect unsubscribe. I gather you're > currently receiving duplicate copies (or maybe more, when people cc > the old account in responding to one of your earlier messages), > right? Yes... and I *was* able to successfully unsub after your hint about looking at the Return-Path header. Thanks! :) > Thanks for explaining this -- I'll add it to my discussion of why an > unsubscribe might not be seen as coming from a subscribed account. No problem... thanks for showing me how to accomplish the unsub. :) >> The correct solution is for either ezmlm to be patched to >> accommodate BATV address tagging (we are NOT the only ones using it >> I assure you), or the OOo list moms should switch to a list >> manager that can handle it - like Mailman. >> >> I've seen how much backscatter this blocks, so I assure you, I >> wouldn't ask webroot to disable this feature even if they would, >> which I doubt. > I gather that ezmlm/CollabNet is not at all likely to change -- there > have been lots of discussions relative to that both here and on the > discuss list. There's no point in pursuing that here, maybe on > discuss. No worries... I honestly don't understand this kind of rigidity, but thats the nature of free software (and freedom in general). Thanks again! -- Best regards, Charles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
