Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: ccMail SMTPLINK Undeliverable Message
From: Postmaster@gatekeeper2.un.org (ccMail SMTPLINK)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 07:55:25 EST

User Surachai V. at UNESCAP4 is not defined

 Original text follows 
 ----------------------------------------------
Received: from gatekeeper6.un.org by mail-in.un.org (SMTPLINK V2.11.01)
	; Thu, 12 Jun 97 07:55:23 EST
Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: by gatekeeper6.un.org; id JAA14267; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:43:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us(192.147.236.1) by gatekeeper6.un.org via smap (3.2)
	id xma014264; Thu, 12 Jun 97 09:43:08 -0400
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA10617; Thu, 12 Jun 97 03:37:47 -0700
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA10611; Thu, 12 Jun 97 03:37:43 -0700
Received: from 207.172.111.93 (spg-as2s30.erols.com [207.172.111.93])
	by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA04836
	for <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:37:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <339FC3D1.3502@erols.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:39:30 -0300
From: Fred Ward <fward@erols.com>
Organization: Gem Book Publishers
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: absurd bounced messages
References: <9706121014.AA10988@nic.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us

It is now clear to all here that it is not necessary to have a malignant
virus or a spammer or a crazed hacker to screw up (thread up ??) a
newslist. 

We have all now experienced a serious NET weakness... one guy screws up
either his own address or closes his account and we get thousands of
messages bounced, rebounced and re-rebounced. It does not take much math
to see the ultimate end to this scenario.

Perhaps Brian in particular and others in general would like to take
this matter as a warning and come up with solutions to provide a way to
terminite such bounces once they begin. There is no reason whatsoever
that our own mailboxes as well as the NET in general should be plagued
with kind of ridiculous duplication.

Fred Ward