[Mailman-Users] Case-Sensitivity Problem?
Mark Sapiro
msapiro at value.net
Wed Dec 13 21:01:50 CET 2006
Ryan Steele wrote:
>I think I've actually identified the problem.
I don't think so.
>Here is an excerpt from the mail header:
>
>>Received: from FOO at aol.com
>> by imo-m26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.6.) id e.cef.43ab224 (57293);
>> Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:41:44 -0500 (EST)
>>From: FOO at aol.com
>>Message-ID: <cef.43ab224.32b16b26 at aol.com>
>>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:41:42 EST
>
>And here is a message from Mailman's bounce log:
>
> >Dec 13 09:42:38 2006 (2202) bounce message w/no discernable addresses:
><cef.43ab224.32b16b26 at aol.com>
> >Dec 13 09:42:38 2006 (2202) forwarding unrecognized, message-id:
><cef.43ab224.32b16b26 at aol.com>
>
>For whatever reason, Mailman treated the message-id that AOL gave it as
>the sender address...thus causing the "Uncaught bounce notification"
>error. The actual bounce occurred because it was sent for moderator
>approval due to the large number of recipients:
No. The 'bounce' occurred because one of the recipients was the
Igcpgrads-bounces address.
> >vette:Dec 13 09:38:51 2006 (2204) Igcpgrads post from foo at aol.com
>held, message-id=<cce.5a1853c.3
> >2b16a2d at aol.com>: Too many recipients to the message
And the message was held because the number of explicit addresses in
To: and Cc: of the message was greater than or equal to Privacy
options...->Recipient filters->max_num_recipients.
--
Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net> The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
More information about the Mailman-Users
mailing list