Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(May 1996)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

From: "Michael C. Berch" <mcb>
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 15:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: list-managers @ greatcircle . com

Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id XAA00124 for <list-managers @
 miles>; Wed, 22 May 1996 23:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-960123)
	id XAA02152; Wed, 22 May 1996 23:13:03 -0700
Received: from mail.his.com(205.177.25.9) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr)
	id sma002132; Wed May 22 23:12:35 1996
Received: from brad.his.com (brad.his.com [205.177.25.174]) by mail.his.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA11780; Thu, 23 May 1996 02:16:55 -0400
Message-Id: <v03006603adaf2c2bdaff @
 brad .
 his .
 com>
In-Reply-To: <009A2AE5 .
 0CD13F38 .
 5 @
 sacto .
 mp .
 usbr .
 gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 23:25:48 -0400
To: "Henry W. Miller" <henrym @
 sacto .
 mp .
 usbr .
 gov>, brozen @
 netvoyage .
 net
From: Brad Knowles <brad @
 his .
 com>
Subject: Re: Help! Compuserve Contact
Cc: list-managers @
 GreatCircle .
 COM, henrym @
 sacto .
 mp .
 usbr .
 gov

At 9:29 PM  -0700 5/21/96, Henry W. Miller wrote:

> 	Well, this is is totally bogus - even lists that generate an:
> "Errots-To:" header?  I've not had a problem with Compuserve flooding my
> lists since I've used a mailer that generates these headers, otherwise
> I'd have serious doubts about even letting someone subscribe from these
> addresses.

	Errors-to: has been deprecated for some time now.  I think it's
only a matter of time before it goes the way of return-reciept-to:,
and I'll be very glad when it's gone.  It's certainly easy enough to
ignore even today.

	The problem is that everyone has written their own SMTP listener
program, because having a custom local mailer that gets fork &
exec'ed by sendmail is just not efficient enough, on top of the fact
that it introduces some unavoidable delay due to local queueing while
processing the message.  However, they all seem to have forgotten
about the envelope sender being the address to which they should send
bounces.  I doubt that will be a problem at AOL, though.

> 	I don't suppose that there is a chance in Hell of getting CIS to
> recant this flawsed decision...

	Not if it's for performance reasons, you won't.  Connect to their
port 25 and see what they identify themselves as.  Do a HELP and see
what info you get there.

	Now, you might convince them to fix their broken code, lest you
and many others do the same thing that a previous poster did --
unsubscribe all CompuServe users from the list because of the
improper behaviour of the mailer.

--
Brad Knowles,                                  MIME/PGP: brad @
 his .
 com
    comp.mail.sendmail FAQ Maintainer     <http://www.his.com/~brad/>
        finger brad @
 his .
 com for my PGP Public Keys and Geek Code
The comp.mail.sendmail FAQ is at <http://www.his.com/~brad/sendmail/>




Indexed By Date Previous: [no subject]
From: "Michael C. Berch" <mcb>
Next: [no subject]
From: "Michael C. Berch" <mcb>
Indexed By Thread Previous: [no subject]
From: "Michael C. Berch" <mcb>
Next: [no subject]
From: "Michael C. Berch" <mcb>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com