Subject: Bad Email addresses

From: William J. Coldwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 93 21:28:54 -0700

I removed the culprit from the mailing list when the problem first started  
happening.. unfortunantly, it's got a 6 day queue, so we've still been getting  
can't deliver messages... in any case, it's going away.

I also get bounces from people who don't know how to use 'vacation' or any of  
the other mail handlers, so PLEASE:  If you don't know what you're doing,  
please don't try anything of that nature before sending an UNSUBSCRIBE to me.   
Otherwise, we will hunt you down, rip your skin off, and pour Hydrogen-Peroxide  
all over you.... and if warranted.. we'll light you too.

Bill
--------------------

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bill Squier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Bad Email addresses
Date: 	Sun, 3 Oct 1993 22:23:42 -0400

>From:	Alan Bair <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Bill Squier - PLEASE READ
>
>Bill,
>
>You may want to contact the site listed below, since there seems to be a
>problem in getting Email to you through it. This is several hops downstream
>from my site and I replied to your Email in the same manner as all the other
>Email. So I don't see much I can do at this end.
>
>Forwarded message:
>> From [email-masked] Sat Oct  2 23:40:31 1993
>> From: [email-masked]
>> [...] etc.

I have tons of trouble with that site replying to people on this list as well.
I'm not sure, but I believe I also get bounces from the listserver should be
getting.  I'm pretty sure that that sort of behaviour isn't to be expected.

I have a feeling that the list server is spitting addresses to members of 

the list that aren't quite ARPA standard, so when our mailers try to parse
a return address, it gets a little mangled a few hops away.

Is cbmuucp a gateway between the Internet and a UUCP feed, or is it
strictly a UUCP operation?  They should probably check their subscription
list to see what style addresses have leaked in there.

That AT&T site looks to be some sort of UUCP gateway too, and we all know
that UUCP and ARPA addresses are not the most cooperative when translating...

Sigh, I'll drop them a note.

-wps

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bill Squier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Bad Email addresses
Date: 	Sun, 3 Oct 1993 22:23:42 -0400

>From:	Alan Bair <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Bill Squier - PLEASE READ
>
>Bill,
>
>You may want to contact the site listed below, since there seems to be a
>problem in getting Email to you through it. This is several hops downstream
>from my site and I replied to your Email in the same manner as all the other
>Email. So I don't see much I can do at this end.
>
>Forwarded message:
>> From [email-masked] Sat Oct  2 23:40:31 1993
>> From: [email-masked]
>> [...] etc.

I have tons of trouble with that site replying to people on this list as well.
I'm not sure, but I believe I also get bounces from the listserver should be
getting.  I'm pretty sure that that sort of behaviour isn't to be expected.

I have a feeling that the list server is spitting addresses to members of 

the list that aren't quite ARPA standard, so when our mailers try to parse
a return address, it gets a little mangled a few hops away.

Is cbmuucp a gateway between the Internet and a UUCP feed, or is it
strictly a UUCP operation?  They should probably check their subscription
list to see what style addresses have leaked in there.

That AT&T site looks to be some sort of UUCP gateway too, and we all know
that UUCP and ARPA addresses are not the most cooperative when translating...

Sigh, I'll drop them a note.

-wps