[Mailman-Users] strange bounce message

[Mark Sapiro]

Anne Ramey wrote:
>
>Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> Anne Ramey wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>A couple of people have sent replies to one of my lists today and 
>>>several of the messages bounced like this:
>>>
>>>      ===============================================
>>>
>>>>              THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY
>>>>          YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE
>>>>      ===============================================
>>>>
>>>>A temporary error occured while delivering to the following address(es):
>>>>
>>>>  <pfenno at ncees.org>: 454 TLS not available, must be connected via TCP
>>>>
>>>>I will continue trying to send the message until it is delivered or
>>>>expires.
>>>
>>>They've replied without incident before.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Are you saying the list is <pfenno at ncees.org> and replyers received
>> that bounce instead of the reply going to the list? 
>They are telling me the reply when to all but 3 people on the list, who 
>got this message.

I'm confused. W replied to the list. The reply reached the list and was
received by all but X, Y and Z who received the above message. Is this
correct? Were X, Y and Z prior posters in the thread and mentioned in
To: or Cc:?


>Are they all in
>> the same domain?
>I think so, yes.
>  Did the bounces all come from the same MTA? which one?
>I think they must have come from the ncees.org mta, but I don't see the 
>corresponding messages in the logs.

What was in the From: header of the above message?

That specific message should only be sent to the sender of the post, W
in this case. Is it possible that W received the three messages (or
one message) mentioning X, Y and Z?


<snip>
>> If in fact something has changed at their end, they probably can't do
>> anything about it unless they changed it in which case they should
>> already know what to do about it.

>Not likely with this group.  If their tech dept.s changed something, 
>they may have no idea.  I'm trying to figure out if it has to do with 
>mailman's method of delivery or the sender's/replier's method of sending 
>(in addition to trying to figure out what to tell them).


That's what I was trying to say. If something changed at their end,
they personally probably can't do anything about it unless they
personally did the change.

I'm still not sure what's going on, but I am guessing that what really
happened is that W's reply was sent directly to X, Y and Z (via To: or
Cc:) and your list didn't send to them at all and the 'delivery delay'
notice(s) was sent to W and that the problem has nothing to do with
your list and involves delivery of mail from W directly to X, Y and Z.

We need more specific information about what was sent and how and who
received these notices and their full contents and headers, not just
the above excerpt, before we can know for sure.

--
Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net>       The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan