From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 1 02:58:20 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id CAA17815; Fri, 1 Apr 1994 02:58:20 GMT Received: from cs.utexas.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA17809; Thu, 31 Mar 1994 18:58:11 -0800 Received: from im4u.cs.utexas.edu by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.25/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08039; Thu, 31 Mar 94 20:58:30 -0600 Message-Id: <9404010258.AA17262@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> Received: by im4u.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.42/uucp) id AA17262; Thu, 31 Mar 94 20:58:38 -0600 Subject: Config Question... To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (list managers) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 20:58:36 -0600 (CST) From: "Lance W. Bledsoe" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 193 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Can anyone tell me how to config my majordomo list so that the address of the "list" is in the *reply* line, and not the sender of the message? Thanks much, Lance Bledsoe lwb@cs.utexas.edu From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 1 03:23:32 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id DAA18036; Fri, 1 Apr 1994 03:23:32 GMT Received: from cs.utexas.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA18029; Thu, 31 Mar 1994 19:23:03 -0800 Received: from im4u.cs.utexas.edu by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.25/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18703; Thu, 31 Mar 94 21:22:35 -0600 Received: from chinaca by im4u.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.42/uucp) with UUCP id AA18429; Thu, 31 Mar 94 21:22:23 -0600 Received: from localhost by chinacat.unicom.com (smail3.1.28.1) id m0pmX4e-0002jMC; Thu, 31 Mar 94 18:27 CST Message-Id: From: chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) Subject: the vultures have landed To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (The List-Managers Mailing List) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 18:27:00 +6600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 998 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I just started up a mailing list to discuss the music of singer/songwriter John Hiatt. Just today, I received an email message from a music publisher implying all sorts of grave and rude threats to me if there are any copyright violations on the list. (Which, by coincidence, I addressed to the list readers just the other day.) I'm wondering if there is a flock of vultures out there, watching us, and waiting to swoop down as was done to me. Or am I the lucky one? Please note this is NOT a question about copyright law. (Nor do I want to engage in a discussion of legal culpability. That's a thread that would generate reams of discussion from people wholly unqualified to answer.) This is a question of common courtesy. I don't appreciate formal and threatening messages in the total absence of any wrongdoing. -- Chip Rosenthal 512-447-0577 | I figure the odds be fifty-fifty Unicom Systems Development | I just might have some thing to say. | -FZ From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 1 04:16:07 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA18281; Fri, 1 Apr 1994 04:16:07 GMT Received: from mordor.cs.du.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA18275; Thu, 31 Mar 1994 20:15:57 -0800 Received: from nyx10.cs.du.edu by mordor.cs.du.edu with SMTP id AA11074 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 31 Mar 1994 21:13:01 -0700 Received: by nyx10.cs.du.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20113; Thu, 31 Mar 94 21:14:08 MST From: rnovak@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Robert Novak) Message-Id: <9404010414.AA20113@nyx10.cs.du.edu> X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University of Denver. The University has neither control over nor responsibility for the opinions or correct identity of users. Subject: Re: the vultures have landed To: chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 21:14:08 -0700 (MST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: from "Chip Rosenthal" at Mar 31, 94 06:27:00 pm Reply-To: rnovak@nyx.cs.du.edu X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1611 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "Chip Rosenthal" says something like: > > I just started up a mailing list to discuss the music of singer/songwriter > John Hiatt. Just today, I received an email message from a music > publisher implying all sorts of grave and rude threats to me if there > are any copyright violations on the list. (Which, by coincidence, I > addressed to the list readers just the other day.) > > I'm wondering if there is a flock of vultures out there, watching us, and > waiting to swoop down as was done to me. Or am I the lucky one? Hmmm... I've never had such a threat even with several musical lists at my fingertips. This sort of a post, from what you've said about it, may be founded from the publisher's perspective. There's no reason to be rude, unless you posted something along the lines of "everybody violate as many of Hiatt's publisher's copyrights as you can as often as you can," which I'll guess you didn't. Just don't tell them that FTP exists :-) One thing you might do is have your list members express displeasure politely to the publisher, or just do so yourself and mention that a lot of Hiatt fans or potential Hiatt fans may have their image of the performer tainted by this publisher's comments and the aftermath. Good luck.... don't let it bug you too much. Robert -- Robert Novak (rnovak@nyx.cs.du.edu) . Manager: tiffany, perfect-beat, slade, "You get elaborate with your lies, . tiger, galaxy, gpdg, galaxy variants Computer dreams slip through your . GM: galaxy, g/2, galactica, blind eyes / Baby you like to be the king of paradise / So sweet and ruthless." -TD From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 1 23:16:06 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA23793; Fri, 1 Apr 1994 23:16:06 GMT Received: from skigo.graphics.cornell.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA23787; Fri, 1 Apr 1994 15:15:49 -0800 Received: by skigo.graphics.cornell.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA08168; Fri, 1 Apr 1994 18:16:13 -0500 Message-Id: <9404012316.AA08168@skigo.graphics.cornell.edu> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Reply-To and IRIX Date: Fri, 01 Apr 94 18:16:12 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth X-Mts: smtp Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Gang, I'm curious if anyone else has encountered this curious behavior with IRIX. I do not have an SGI system at my disposal for testing and the situation seems so bizarre that I find it hard to believe. I recently had an issue of the digest version of one of my lists bounced back from an SGI system because the user had messed up the protections on his mailbox so that sendmail couldn't write to it. Normally no big deal, he just misses an issue of the digest, right? Well in this case his sendmail bounced the digest to the Reply-To: address instead of (or possibly in addition) the Errors-To: or Return-Path: address. Errors-To: and Return-Path: both point to the list manager, Reply-To: points to the list posting address! So of course the bounced digest went straight back out to everyone on the non-digest version of the list, and into the beginning of the next issue of the digest. (Fortunately the next digest was small enough that the combined size of the two digests was smaller than the trigger size that causes the digest program to immediately send out a new issue instead of waiting for the next cron run. If it had been bigger a mail loop of repeating digests would have ensued!) Of course as soon as I realized what had happened I dropped the subscriber and requested that he either fix his sendmail or subscribe from a different system, *without* a .forward back to the offending system! In all the time I've been running my lists this is the first time I have seen a sendmail do something this stupid. (Not to say I haven't seen stupid, only that the others pale by comparison.) The system's login banner says: IRIX System V.3 (stereosgi) ... and the subscriber claims it's running out-of-the-box sendmail with the only config changes being to define the domain and forwarder addresses. He also claims to have run some tests and verified that his system sends bounces to both the Reply-To: and Errors-To: addresses. Since I don't know IRIX, I have no idea how recent/ancient this version is, but I am truly amazed that a vendor would ship a sendmail with this behavior. Can anyone confirm or deny this as out-of-the-box behavior? -Mitch From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 2 01:23:18 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id BAA24201; Sat, 2 Apr 1994 01:23:18 GMT Received: from unpc.queernet.org by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA24195; Fri, 1 Apr 1994 17:23:10 -0800 Received: by unpc.queernet.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #10) id m0pmuSb-000MWWC; Fri, 1 Apr 94 17:25 PST Message-Id: Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 17:19 PST From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) To: mkc@graphics.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Reply-To and IRIX In-Reply-To: <9404012316.AA08168@skigo.graphics.cornell.edu> Organization: QueerNet Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In article <9404012316.AA08168@skigo.graphics.cornell.edu> you write: >Well in this case his sendmail bounced the digest to the Reply-To: >address instead of (or possibly in addition) the Errors-To: or >Return-Path: address. Actually, it should send the error to the envelope From_ address; what's that set to? -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy: the refusal of joy." -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 4 15:04:18 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA05690; Mon, 4 Apr 1994 15:04:18 GMT Received: from skigo.graphics.cornell.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA05684; Mon, 4 Apr 1994 08:04:11 -0700 Received: by skigo.graphics.cornell.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA10630; Mon, 4 Apr 1994 11:03:09 -0400 Message-Id: <9404041503.AA10630@skigo.graphics.cornell.edu> To: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Reply-To and IRIX In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 Apr 94 17:19:00 PST." Date: Mon, 04 Apr 94 11:03:08 -0400 From: Mitch Collinsworth X-Mts: smtp Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>Well in this case his sendmail bounced the digest to the Reply-To: >>address instead of (or possibly in addition) the Errors-To: or >>Return-Path: address. > >Actually, it should send the error to the envelope From_ address; >what's that set to? Agreed. It's set the same as Errors-To: - to the list manager. The question isn't really about that, though. It's about the bounce to the Reply-To: address. -Mitch From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 5 19:31:39 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA00789; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 19:31:39 GMT Received: from CVI.HAHNEMANN.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA00783; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 12:31:27 -0700 Received: by cvi.hahnemann.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 20120; Tue, 05 Apr 1994 15:29:39 EDT Date: Tue, 05 Apr 1994 15:29:35 EDT From: "Anthony J. Rzepela" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Message-ID: <0097C821.0C986920.20120@cvi.hahnemann.edu> Subject: AOL flexing some muscle (USENET posting) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk With all the brouhaha about AOL a while back, and the rather cavalier attitude some people had towards AOL's ability to do anything, I forward to the list the following tidbit from USENET, posted in news.admin.policy,news.admin, and alt.internet. If this has come up on ListManagers, sorry. (I get the digest, not the immediate list.) If not, uh, enjoy. :-/ ================================begin From: dtynan@philby.ilo.dec.com (Dermot Tynan) Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,alt.internet Subject: AOL Hassles (let the flame-wars begin)... Date: 5 Apr 1994 17:09:32 GMT Organization: Claddagh Films Limited Lines: 60 Message-ID: <2ns60c$5kb@decuk.uvo.dec.com> OK, so this probably isn't the place to post this, so feel free to cross-post it (and any replies) elsewhere. I'd also appreciate a quick mail message from someone saying they've seen this posting because I'm not convinced the NNTP stuff is working. Anyway... Scott Dorsey (of Filmmakers Mailing List fame) has just been slimed big time by America Online (AOL). He wrote to them to ask that they educate their users better on how to subscribe to mailing lists, and Netiquette in general. He was receiving tons of SUBSCRIBE requests to the mailing list, by people who had no clue what it was or why they should be interested in it. Usually, after a day or two, the subscribers would then ask to be dropped, again mailing directly to the list instead of to the admin address. Most had never seen the standard net documents and were completely ignorant concerning protocol or etiquette. AOL wrote to Scotts' senior management and spuriously claimed he was forging AOL mail and using Government equipment for non-Government purposes. He has now been told to shut down the mailing list. As one of the original creators of the mailing list, I have come to depend on it as an invaluable resource for independent film making. Now, it has been yanked by an organization which seems to have no respect for net.tradition. I am disheartened to see such a proliferation of organizations such as AOL which take advantage of the facilities provided by the net at large, charge money to their subscribers for using such facilities, and then in the face of all that, create trouble and work for people volunteering their time and efforts to keep the whole system afloat. I for one have had enough. I intend to write to AOL and complain vehemently. I also intend to educate their users concerning the atrocities committed in their name. This cannot go on. This is not a playground for juveniles or their incompetent administrators. The net, after all, is anarchistic in nature. If enough people are annoyed at the shoddy (or shady) business practices of one organization, we should be able to do something about it. I appeal to other people, in similar circumstances to come forward, and to send mail to AOL denouncing that organizations stance, and imploring them to take immediate action. I would also like to hear of possible remedies for renegade outfits such as AOL. I'm sorry if this rankles those of you who connect via AOL, but you should be aware of what your hard-earned dollars are supporting. The apparent reputation of people who use AOL for subscribing is that they are ill-informed kids, given to flaming and hacking. This, I'm convinced is due to poor system administration policies on behalf of AOL. A little educating can go a long way toward alleviating net traffic, and saving the electronic reputations of the countless numbers of people who use the facilities knowledgeably and without creating a ruckus. Whether or not you're an AOL user, I would ask that you write a stern letter to AOL management decrying their recent tactics, and asking that they take more positive steps towards educating their users. Vote please, with your checkbooks, and support an on-line facility with a better corporate culture. - Der -- Dermot Tynan, dtynan@philby.ilo.dec.com Filmmaking: The art of creation in the face of adversity. ================================end From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 5 19:58:44 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA00902; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 19:58:44 GMT Received: from z.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA00896; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 12:58:38 -0700 Received: from localhost (mmorse@localhost) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id PAA11102; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 15:58:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199404051958.PAA11102@z.nsf.gov> From: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 15:58:14 EDT In-Reply-To: "Anthony J. Rzepela" "AOL flexing some muscle (USENET posting)" (Apr 5, 3:29pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: "Anthony J. Rzepela" Subject: Re: AOL flexing some muscle (USENET posting) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > AOL wrote to Scotts' senior management and spuriously claimed he was > forging AOL mail and using Government equipment for non-Government > purposes. I guess I'd have to know more about what the above sentence means before I could pass judgement on this case. On the surface, it doesn't sound like behavior likely to get you a good reception from senior management types. Perhaps if we could see the message Scott sent to AOL, we could judge the appropriateness of the response. --Mike From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 5 20:21:58 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA01076; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 20:21:58 GMT Received: from de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA01070; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 13:21:49 -0700 Received: (from de5@localhost) by de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV (8.6.7/8.6.6) id QAA03456; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 16:21:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 16:21:36 -0400 From: Dave Sill Message-Id: <199404052021.QAA03456@de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV> To: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Cc: "Anthony J. Rzepela" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL flexing some muscle (USENET posting) In-Reply-To: <199404051958.PAA11102@z.nsf.gov> References: <199404051958.PAA11102@z.nsf.gov> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> AOL wrote to Scotts' senior management and spuriously claimed he was >> forging AOL mail and using Government equipment for non-Government >> purposes. > >I guess I'd have to know more about what the above sentence means >before I could pass judgement on this case. On the surface, it >doesn't sound like behavior likely to get you a good reception from >senior management types. Perhaps if we could see the message Scott >sent to AOL, we could judge the appropriateness of the response. We'd also need to know where Scott works and what their mission is before we could determine whether or not the film-makers list was appropriate for his site. It sure would be cheesy of someone to question the appropriateness of a particular list on a Government system merely because the list manager challenged them to do a better job, *but* we Gov't-equipment-using people need to be sure to use that equipment for the purposes it was funded to accomplish. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) I dream of a televisionland where it will be Martin Marietta Energy Systems as hard for a network to expose us to violence Workstation Support as it is for me to tell someone they have spinach on their teeth. --Paula Poundstone URL http://www.dec.com/pub/DEC/DECinfo/html/dsill.html From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 5 20:41:22 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA01204; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 20:41:22 GMT Received: from d.ecc.engr.uky.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA01198; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 13:41:14 -0700 Received: from s.ecc.engr.uky.edu by d.ecc.engr.uky.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA07672; Tue, 5 Apr 94 16:32:34 EDT Received: by s.ecc.engr.uky.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01092; Tue, 5 Apr 94 16:31:23 EDT Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 16:31:23 EDT From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Message-Id: <9404052031.AA01092@s.ecc.engr.uky.edu> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL flexing some muscle Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Anthony J. Rzepela reposts: >From: dtynan@philby.ilo.dec.com (Dermot Tynan) >Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,alt.internet >Subject: AOL Hassles (let the flame-wars begin)... > >[...] >Scott Dorsey (of Filmmakers Mailing List fame) has just been slimed big >time by America Online (AOL). He wrote to them to ask that they >educate their users better on how to subscribe to mailing lists, and >Netiquette in general. > >AOL wrote to Scotts' senior management and spuriously claimed he was >forging AOL mail and using Government equipment for non-Government >purposes. >[...remainder deleted...] For starters, we don't know that "AOL management" did this. I've been told (too many times) that "some official at booga.com says," only to find that it's some hacked-off *user* at booga.com. Let's not pull out the tar and feathers until we know "what's what." I will say that, if AOL management is indeed responsible, there is NO excuse for such behavior. >He has now been told to shut down the mailing list. Couldn't we rephrase this problem as "why did the host site take such drastic action after *one* complaint?" I'm not defending AOL - I'm simply saying that we should not allow our concern with the flood of AOL newbies to lead us into assumptions that may be erroneous. I, for one, have contacted AOL management and asked them, point-blank, if this is an accurate report of the situation. If it is, I'll join you in discussing the reaction we should take as list owners. --Wes From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 5 21:40:29 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA01593; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 21:40:29 GMT Received: from Sun.COM by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA01586; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 14:40:20 -0700 Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag.Eng.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (sun-barr.Sun.COM) id AA21630; Tue, 5 Apr 94 14:40:16 PDT Received: from cleo.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26774; Tue, 5 Apr 94 14:39:25 PDT Received: by cleo.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18190; Tue, 5 Apr 94 14:35:08 PDT Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 14:35:08 PDT From: Teshager.Tesfaye@Eng.Sun.COM (T2) Message-Id: <9404052135.AA18190@cleo.Eng.Sun.COM> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: is the following possible Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Could majordomo be setup as follows in such a way that a the command "who list" for members of a closed list is suppressed? Thanks. -T2 From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 5 22:07:50 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA01731; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 22:07:50 GMT Received: from emory.mathcs.emory.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA01724; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 15:07:39 -0700 Received: from toolz.UUCP by emory.mathcs.emory.edu (5.65/Emory_mathcs.3.4.19) via UUCP id AA06083 ; Tue, 5 Apr 94 18:07:33 -0400 Received: by toolz (5.65/1.35) id AA24936; Tue, 5 Apr 94 17:45:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 17:45:28 -0400 From: todd%toolz.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu (Todd Merriman) Message-Id: <9404052145.AA24936@toolz> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL flexing some muscle (USENET posting) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >With all the brouhaha about AOL a while >back... It you think the AOL situation with mailing lists is bad, just wait til the AOL subscribers start posting News! That's right, AOL is introducing Usenet News within a few weeks, according to a letter from the AOL president to the subscribers (I am one). | Todd Merriman - Software Toolz, Inc. +1 404 889 8264 / Maintainer of the | 8030 Pooles Mill Dr., Ball Ground, GA 30107 / Software Entrepreneur's | todd@toolz.atl.ga.us / Mailing List Work flows toward the competent until they are submerged From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 5 22:07:58 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA01737; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 22:07:58 GMT Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA01726; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 15:07:47 -0700 Received: from localhost (pjg@localhost) by urth (8.6.8/8.6.4) with SMTP id SAA14927 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 18:07:39 -0400 Message-Id: <199404052207.SAA14927@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: urth.acsu.buffalo.edu: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: is the following possible In-reply-to: A message of "Tue, 05 Apr 1994 14:35:08 PDT." <9404052135.AA18190@cleo.Eng.Sun.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 05 Apr 1994 18:07:39 -0400 From: Paul Graham Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk i was interested in this myself so i added ``anon'' to the list types. perhaps something like this could be added to the standard distribution. -------- T2 writes: Could majordomo be setup as follows in such a way that a the command "who list" for members of a closed list is suppressed? ------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 5 22:39:27 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA01891; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 22:39:27 GMT Received: from news.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA01885; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 15:39:19 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by news.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.1) id AA21985; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 18:39:13 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA08571; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 18:39:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 18:39:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: AOL flexing some muscle (USENET posting) To: Todd Merriman Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9404052145.AA24936@toolz> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >With all the brouhaha about AOL a while > >back... > > It you think the AOL situation with mailing lists is bad, > just wait til the AOL subscribers start posting News! > That's right, AOL is introducing Usenet News within a few > weeks, according to a letter from the AOL president to > the subscribers (I am one). > Sorry to bring up a subject you may have already talked out, but I am new to the list and am wondering about the comments about AOL and mailing lists. I did check in there, and noticed one of my lists is mentioned. I've had some new subscribers as a result, but it hasn't been a problem (so far). I posted this one on the 'new lists' list, so I was already out there. There's some other lists I have though, that could have a problem with that much publicity. If this list has already had enough talk on the topic, private posts to me would be apprecaited. Thanks. -Sharon From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 5 22:57:47 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA02044; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 22:57:47 GMT Received: from summit.novell.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA01499; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 14:26:22 -0700 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 17:25 EDT Message-ID: <9404051725.AA05986@summit.novell.com> From: mingus@summit.novell.com (Marcel-Franck Simon) To: rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu ("Anthony J. Rzepela"), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Received: from summit by summit.novell.com; Tue, 5 Apr 94 17:25 EDT Subject: Re: AOL flexing some muscle (USENET posting) Content-Length: 1815 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk My experience with AOL, their users and my mailing list has been thus: - Received a flood of subscribe requests by people who were completely ignorant of the list's subscribe protocol. - Contacted postmaster@aol.com and asked that s/he rectify the situation - Received no answer over a period of a couple months - Got annoyed - List-Managers list went through a what-to-do-about-clueless-AOL-subscribers discussion, during which I relayed the above - Heard comments from people who *had* gotten response from postmaster@aol.com - Wrote postmaster@aol.com again - Received a *very* cooperative response within one day, explaining that things were just getting setup to deal with problems like mine, and saying that my mail had been forwarded to listmaster@aol.com - Received an *equally* cooperative response from the listmaster within 1-2 days after that. Sent this person a couple messages explaining the process I wanted their subscribers to follow - Haven't had a problem with AOL people subscribing to my list, since. Several of them have turned out to be excellent contributors. I conclude that the problem was one of ignorance compounded by miscommunication. AOL deserves responsibility for rushing their people onto the Internet without teaching them the rules of the road, so to speak; but IMO they are doing the right thing to correct the situation. This message does not jibe at all with my own situation, and I'd want to hear a lot more details, including AOL's version of the story, before blasting away at them. Remember, AOL makes money by (a) getting more subscribers and (b) these subscribers being connected for good long periods of time. I would think they would *want* their people to subscribe to as many lists as possible, increasing the fees they pay AOL.... Marcel From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 5 23:01:49 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA02115; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 23:01:49 GMT Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA02108; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 16:01:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199404052301.QAA02108@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: Teshager.Tesfaye@Eng.Sun.COM (T2) cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: is the following possible In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 5 Apr 94 14:35:08 PDT Date: Tue, 05 Apr 1994 16:01:42 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Teshager.Tesfaye@Eng.Sun.COM (T2) writes: # # Could majordomo be setup as follows in such a way that # a the command "who list" for members of a closed list # is suppressed? # # Thanks. # -T2 First, questions about specific mailing list packages should be referred to the support lists for those packages (in the case of Majordomo, that's Majordomo-Users@GreatCircle.COM), not to the the List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM mailing list. List-Managers is for more general discussions of policy, procedure, experiences, and so forth. To answer your question: yes, sort of. In the current release of Majordomo, if you mark the list "private", then only members of the list can see who else is on the list. In the next release (which is about to go out for beta test), you'll be able to turn this off entirely (but beware that it's usually pretty easy to get the same info from Sendmail). -Brent -- Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | Call or email for info about Brent@GreatCircle.COM | 1057 West Dana Street | upcoming Internet Security +1 415 962 0841 | Mountain View, CA 94041 | Firewalls Tutorial dates From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 5 23:19:39 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA02341; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 23:19:39 GMT Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA02331; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 16:19:31 -0700 Message-Id: <199404052319.QAA02331@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL flexing some muscle (USENET posting) In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 5 Apr 1994 15:58:14 EDT Date: Tue, 05 Apr 1994 16:19:29 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) writes: # # > AOL wrote to Scotts' senior management and spuriously claimed he was # > forging AOL mail and using Government equipment for non-Government # > purposes. # # I guess I'd have to know more about what the above sentence means # before I could pass judgement on this case. On the surface, it # doesn't sound like behavior likely to get you a good reception from # senior management types. Perhaps if we could see the message Scott # sent to AOL, we could judge the appropriateness of the response. There's another consideration here: just because a machine has a .GOV address, don't assume it's a government machine. The machines at GreatCircle.COM, for instance, are also known as CAP.GOV (Civil Air Patrol). They are most definitely MY machines, though; I bought them, I own them, I've never received a dime from the government for the CAP.GOV stuff (it's part of the volunteer work that I do with CAP), and they don't have ANY say in what "appropriate use" of these machines is. -Brent -- Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | Call or email for info about Brent@GreatCircle.COM | 1057 West Dana Street | upcoming Internet Security +1 415 962 0841 | Mountain View, CA 94041 | Firewalls Tutorial dates From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 5 23:47:12 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA02817; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 23:47:12 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA02811; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 16:47:04 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA17511; Tue, 5 Apr 94 19:44:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 19:42:57 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Subject: Re: AOL flexing some muscle (USENET posting) To: Todd Merriman Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9404052145.AA24936@toolz> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > It you think the AOL situation with mailing lists is bad, > just wait til the AOL subscribers start posting News! ^^^^^ > That's right, AOL is introducing Usenet News within a few > weeks, according to a letter from the AOL president to > the subscribers (I am one). Start? It's been available for at least three weeks. Use the keyword "internet" or "newsgroups". David. From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 5 17:03:43 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA02779; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 23:45:53 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA02773; Tue, 5 Apr 1994 16:45:45 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA17495; Tue, 5 Apr 94 19:42:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 19:41:30 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Subject: Re: is the following possible To: T2 Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9404052135.AA18190@cleo.Eng.Sun.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 5 Apr 1994, T2 wrote: > Could majordomo be setup as follows in such a way that > a the command "who list" for members of a closed list > is suppressed? Sure; just change the command in the perl script and change the info message to tell people who isn't available. David. From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 6 12:40:37 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA04042; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 12:40:37 GMT Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA04036; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 05:40:29 -0700 Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 8:40:32 EDT From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL flexing some muscle (USENET posting) Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Message-ID: <9404060840.aa13768@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk todd@toolz.atl.ga.us wrote: >>With all the brouhaha about AOL a while >>back... > >It you think the AOL situation with mailing lists is bad, >just wait til the AOL subscribers start posting News! >That's right, AOL is introducing Usenet News within a few >weeks, according to a letter from the AOL president to >the subscribers (I am one). Hmmm. They've already been doing so for a month now. WRT the original post, I find it quite unlikely that the sysadmins at AOL did as described. I sent a note off to postmaster enquiring about the way they handle mailing lists there, since I'd been getting a whole bunch of subscribes followed 3 days later by corresponding unsubscribes. PM forwarded my note to a person whose job it is to maintain a database of internet mailing lists for users on AOL. That person solicited me for up-to-date descriptions of my mailing lists, sub/unsub procedures, etc. Not the story I've seen presented here at all... Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 6 14:02:30 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA04411; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 14:02:30 GMT Received: from intercon.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA04405; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 07:02:21 -0700 Received: from localhost by intercon.com (Sendmail 8.6.5/940209.RS) id KAA01869; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 10:02:11 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 10:02:11 -0400 From: jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) Message-Id: <199404061402.KAA01869@intercon.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL flexing some muscle (USENET posting) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Isn't the AOL List manager on this list? If not, did anyone keep the posting he made a while ago saying 'Talk to me if you have problems'? JB From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 6 14:22:15 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA04536; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 14:22:15 GMT Received: from CVI.HAHNEMANN.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA04523; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 07:21:58 -0700 Received: by cvi.hahnemann.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 20259; Wed, 06 Apr 1994 10:20:10 EDT Date: Wed, 06 Apr 1994 10:20:08 EDT From: "Anthony J. Rzepela" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Message-ID: <0097C8BE.FC0D98C0.20259@cvi.hahnemann.edu> Subject: Gee, why are LM's tired of AOLers? Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm forwarding a copy of email I got from someone at AOL calling himself a "System Administrator". The message refers to me in the third person, and seems to be addressed to the List Managers list as a whole, so I really don't think this is a matter of forwarding private email. I hope someone besides me appreciates the irony of an AOL sys admin who doesn't now how to get a reply to a list message to the appropriate place, and the methodology described in the following letter used to finger the "culprit". My own comment? If I'm EVER a defendant in a criminal case, I want all AOL people excluded. =====================================begin From: MX%"pmdatropos@aol.com" 5-APR-1994 17:01:32.58 Subj: Re: AOL flexing some muscle (... Return-Path: Received: from mailgate.prod.aol.net by CVI.HAHNEMANN.EDU (MX V3.3 VAX) with SMTP; Tue, 05 Apr 1994 16:32:19 EDT Received: by mailgate.prod.aol.net (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA17711; Tue, 5 Apr 94 16:31:51 -0400 From: pmdatropos@aol.com X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Sender: "pmdatropos" Message-ID: <9404051631.tn443803@aol.com> To: rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu Date: Tue, 05 Apr 94 16:31:49 EDT Subject: Re: AOL flexing some muscle (... "Anthony J. Rzepela" forwarded some mail regarding action taken against Scott Dorsey. Since I was involved in the situation, I feel it's only appropriate that the *other side* of the story be told. A few weeks ago, I received a bounced e-mail informing me that a news article I allegedly posted to several newsgroups was being returned as a result of bad headers. Since I had never written any such article, I was obviously surprised (and concerned). After examining the headers of the article, we determined a list of sites from which the forgery could conceivably have come. We attempted to contact all of the postmasters at those sites and ascertain what had, indeed, happened. Mr Dorsey was one of the respondants. Postmasters at the other sites responded in such a fashion that we were reasonably certain the forgery had not arisen from their machines. This left only Mr Dorsey's machine, in the NASA domain. Mind you, up til this point I had no idea who Mr Dorsey was; claims that any action taken against him were motivated by corporate or personal vendetta are simply false. Our next step involved contacting the postmaster at the NASA machine (and cc:ing their admin. contact) and alerting them to the possibility that the integrity of their machine had been compromised. Again, at NO TIME was there an effort to target Mr. Dorsey, or to allege that he was the source of the forgery. As far as I am concerned, there has never been any hard evidence that he was the cause -- however, it *did* appear that the most likely path of propagation was from Mr. Dorsey's computer. We recently received mail from NASA indicating that in their opinion the case was closed and that they would whatever action, if any, they deemed appropriate. To date, I have received several pieces of private e-mail regarding the USENET article which I allegedly wrote; in each case I have asked the sender to identify the place where the article appeared (only one has responded). I repeat that this article did *not* originate from me or my computer. Although the letter forwarded by Mr Rzepela leaves me upset, I can and do understand the underlying reason for it. I cannot emphasize enough that there has never been any intent to cause harm to Mr. Dorsey. If action was taken against him by NASA, I can only conclude that they deemed it appropriate. Regards, David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com) System Administrator, America Online, Inc. ==========================================================end From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 6 14:34:26 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA04614; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 14:34:26 GMT Received: from z.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA04607; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 07:34:10 -0700 Received: from localhost (mmorse@localhost) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id KAA11798 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 10:33:16 -0400 Message-Id: <199404061433.KAA11798@z.nsf.gov> From: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 10:33:16 EDT In-Reply-To: "Anthony J. Rzepela" "AOL flexing some muscle (USENET posting)" (Apr 5, 3:29pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Where bounces go to Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Am I correct in my understanding that mailers should be sending bounces to the From address from the envelope (or to be more precise, the address specified in the MAIL FROM: line in the SMTP interchange)? Am I also correct in my understanding that this address is the one displayed on most Unix sendmail-based systems in the "From" line that delimits mail messages? Assuming I'm correct, I am considering not allowing folks to subscribe to my lists if their mailer doesn't send errors back to the correct address. (I have little tolerance for bounces.) I would just build up, manually, a list of host names that don't follow the spec. If someone with one of the hostnames tried to subscribe, they'd get back a message saying something like, "I know it's probably not your fault, but we don't allow non-RFC compliant mailers to use our lists. Please have your postmaster contact ______ when it's fixed, blah, blah, blah." Questions: Has anyone taken this extreme step? What are the possible reprecussions. --Mike From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 6 15:01:10 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA04752; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 15:01:10 GMT Received: from skigo.graphics.cornell.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA04746; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 08:01:03 -0700 Received: by skigo.graphics.cornell.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02192; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 11:00:58 -0400 Message-Id: <9404061500.AA02192@skigo.graphics.cornell.edu> To: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Where bounces go to In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 Apr 94 10:33:16 EDT." <199404061433.KAA11798@z.nsf.gov> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 94 11:00:58 -0400 From: Mitch Collinsworth X-Mts: smtp Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk My reading of the RFCs agrees with yours and yes, in response to the situation I outlined last week with the SGI machine sending bounces to the Reply-To: address, I have taken just the "extreme" step you suggest. This is the 2nd time I've had to bounce someone. In both cases my stated position is that I have only one requirement for people who subscribe to my lists and that is that their mailbox reside on a system that conforms to the accepted internet standards. If it does not and puts the list at risk, you're out. Find your system or get a mailbox on a different one. (Note that if the person resubscribes with another address, you still gotta check that he hasn't .forward-ed mail from there back to the offending system.) In last week's incident the user put up a lengthy argument, which only ceased when I trotted out the RFCs and pointed him to specific sections. At that point he found a new mailbox AND went after SGI customer support to find out how to fix his sendmail. I too wondered about possible repercussions, but I decided I could safely stand on the RFCs if someone ever tried to get nasty about it. -Mitch From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 6 17:59:21 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA06443; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 17:59:21 GMT Received: from z.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA06437; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 10:59:14 -0700 Received: from localhost (mmorse@localhost) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id NAA12029 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 13:59:00 -0400 Message-Id: <199404061759.NAA12029@z.nsf.gov> From: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 13:59:00 EDT In-Reply-To: "Anthony J. Rzepela" "Gee, why are LM's tired of AOLers?" (Apr 6, 10:20am) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Gee, why are LM's tired of AOLers? Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I think I would change your subject to "why are LM's so sensitive"? FTF communication between human beings is difficult enough. E-mail, lacking instantaneous response and non-verbal clues is much worse. I think David B. O'Donnell's message is quite reasonable, clear, and polite. What more do you want from the guy??? Other comments on your message follow. --Mike > I'm forwarding a copy of email I got from someone > at AOL calling himself a "System Administrator". This is demeaning in that you are implying he is *not* a system administrator, at least in the way you think of system administrator. Insulting people in e-mail is unlikely to elicit cooperation. If your intention is to insult, then I think that speaks for itself. From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 6 11:38:44 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA06660; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 18:32:04 GMT Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA06652; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 11:31:49 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id OAA27473; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 14:31:13 -0400 Message-Id: <199404061831.OAA27473@wilma.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Where bounces go to In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Apr 1994 10:33:16 EDT." <199404061433.KAA11798@z.nsf.gov> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 1994 14:31:12 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Am I correct in my understanding that mailers should be sending > bounces to the From address from the envelope (or to be more precise, > the address specified in the MAIL FROM: line in the SMTP interchange)? Yes. > Am I also correct in my understanding that this address is the one > displayed on most Unix sendmail-based systems in the "From" > line that delimits mail messages? Usually. However, since some user agents use that field for replies, some delivery agents put a different address in that field. > Assuming I'm correct, I am considering not allowing folks to > subscribe to my lists if their mailer doesn't send errors back to > the correct address. (I have little tolerance for bounces.) I would > just build up, manually, a list of host names that don't follow the > spec. If someone with one of the hostnames tried to subscribe, they'd > get back a message saying something like, "I know it's probably not > your fault, but we don't allow non-RFC compliant mailers to use our > lists. Please have your postmaster contact ______ when it's fixed, > blah, blah, blah." > > Questions: Has anyone taken this extreme step? What are the possible > reprecussions. I take somewhat less extreme measures. When someone wants to subscribe to one of my lists using an address that looks like the name of a sub-list, I first send that person a message asking if the sub-list sets the envelope address properly. If not, I try to help them fix their mailer. I have only occasional problems with bounces going to any of my lists, and the usual culprit is a gateway to a non-Internet mail system which doesn't keep separate header/envelope addresses. Then again, my lists don't reset the From header field, so broken mailers will bounce messages to the sender of the message instead of the list. That's far from ideal, but at least it doesn't trash the entire list. Keith Moore From list-managers-owner Thu Apr 7 00:06:44 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id AAA08897; Thu, 7 Apr 1994 00:06:44 GMT Received: from lobby.ti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA08890; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 17:06:14 -0700 Received: from itg.ti.com ([128.247.93.50]) by lobby.ti.com with SMTP (5.65c/LAI-3.2) id AA02178; Wed, 6 Apr 1994 19:06:09 -0500 Received: from DSKMGWST.ITG.TI.COM by itg.ti.com (4.1/ITG-1.1) id AA23441; Wed, 6 Apr 94 14:49:06 CDT Message-Id: <9404061949.AA23441@itg.ti.com> From: KRAV.DPCPO004@DSKMGWS1.itg.ti.com (Alan Kravitz) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 1994 14:45 CST To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Commercial Listserv Providers Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm looking for some direction and hope that someone on this list can help me. My employer Texas Instruments is sponsoring discussion lists on Internet concerning products we provide to students and educators. Many of you are probably familiar with these products, TI graphing and scientific calculators. We currently sponsor two lists at a Ohio State University (Graph-TI & Calc-TI), but would like to establish a business relationship with a commercial service provider to take over the duties being provided by OSU. The services were looking for include discussion lists (listserv & network news) and an archive for source code from users and TI product information (ftp site). Other services we are interested in obtaining from a service provider include Gopher, Archie, WAIS, WWW for our information. Because our customers are students and educators, we feel that Internet (which is widely available to these groups at no cost to them) is the right mechanism to provide the forum for people to exchange information about our products. Commercial services such as Prodigy, CompuServe, America Online and Delphi could provide these services but most students and educators have told us that they don't access these commercial services. TI does have a presence on the Internet, but for security reasons, we can't host lists and provide anonymous ftp from computing resources on TI's internal network. Therefore, we'd like to locate a service provider who is in the business of providing these kinds of services. Again, any help from list managers would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Alan Kravitz ============================================================================== = Texas Instruments Personal Productivity Products Phone:(214) 917-6395 7800 Banner Drive, MS 3911 FAX: (214) 917-1505 Dallas, Texas 75251 Internet Address: akravitz@lobby.ti.com ============================================================================== = From list-managers-owner Thu Apr 7 14:46:20 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA12240; Thu, 7 Apr 1994 14:46:20 GMT Received: from CVI.HAHNEMANN.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA12234; Thu, 7 Apr 1994 07:45:59 -0700 Received: by cvi.hahnemann.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 20593; Thu, 07 Apr 1994 10:44:03 EDT Date: Thu, 07 Apr 1994 10:43:58 EDT From: "Anthony J. Rzepela" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Message-ID: <0097C98B.7B3950E0.20593@cvi.hahnemann.edu> Subject: Insults, competence, etc. Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) writes: > I think I would change your subject to "why are LM's so sensitive"? > FTF communication between human beings is difficult enough. E-mail, > lacking instantaneous response and non-verbal clues is much worse. > I think David B. O'Donnell's message is quite reasonable, clear, and > polite. What more do you want from the guy??? 1. I would like his mail to go to the right place? Like the list instead of my mailbox? 2. I would like his followup to somebody else, which also mistakenly came into my mailbox, and which attributed to me some things I NEVER said, to also go to the right place? (No, I'm not forwarding it. If he didn't save a copy, he's fucked.) 3. I would like a little more confidence in the forgery-sniffing talents of someone who can't even manage to handle attributes, send REPLIES to LIST MESSAGES to the LIST, or figure out from standard attribute cues who did (or didn't) say something. 4. I would like to think that before running around screaming "Forgery! Forgery!" the AOL people would have more evidence than how (un)believable they found the performance of the sysadmins when answering questions. > This is demeaning in that you are implying he is *not* a system > administrator, at least in the way you think of system administrator. > Insulting people in e-mail is unlikely to elicit cooperation. The only cooperation I need from him at this point is for him to stop sending me email intended for someone else and misattributing others' prose to me. Of course, his competence at actually sending mail says little about his ability to sniff out and finger forgeries. :) +------ Anthony J. Rzepela rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu -----+ | Hahnemann University, Philadelphia (215) 762-7741 | | I do not speak for, or represent, Hahnemann University or AHERF. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From list-managers-owner Thu Apr 7 15:12:02 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA12328; Thu, 7 Apr 1994 15:12:02 GMT Received: from snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA12322; Thu, 7 Apr 1994 08:11:53 -0700 Received: by snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca (5.64/1.35) id AA22846; Thu, 7 Apr 94 11:11:48 -0400 From: stevep@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca (Steve Portigal) Message-Id: <9404071511.AA22846@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca> Subject: bitnet go bye-bye? To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 11:11:46 EDT In-Reply-To: <199404070810.BAA10737@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM>; from "List-Managers-Digest-Owner@GreatCircle.COM" at Apr 7, 94 1:10 am Organization: Your Company Name Here X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At any rate the problem I'm having is with BITNET users on my mailing list. They *all* bounced last night. I'm wondering if there was some sudden shift from BITNET address to the Internet-style equivalents. If so, then I would expect any reader concerned to mail me with new email information. It hasn't happened. Do all BITNET sites have Internet equivalents? Can anyone suggest a painless way of finding them all, or should I just delete 'em all. OR: is this a one-time occurrence perhaps and they'll all be back tomorrow? Ie, I haven't isolated the cause let alone the solution -- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Portigal ** User-Interface Dude (looking for work) | | View my M.Sc. thesis online at: http://130.43.3.18/ | | stevep@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca Voice/Fax: (905) 632 6647 | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ From list-managers-owner Thu Apr 7 08:28:52 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA12494; Thu, 7 Apr 1994 15:20:34 GMT Received: from mailgate.prod.aol.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA12488; Thu, 7 Apr 1994 08:20:26 -0700 From: pmdatropos@aol.com Received: by mailgate.prod.aol.net (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA10780; Thu, 7 Apr 94 11:17:43 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Message-Id: <9404071117.tn509981@aol.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 07 Apr 94 11:17:43 EDT Subject: Re: Insults, competence, etc. Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu writes: [ ... ] >2. I would like his followup to somebody else, which also > mistakenly came into my mailbox, and which attributed > to me some things I NEVER said, to also go to the > right place? (No, I'm not forwarding it. If he didn't > save a copy, he's fucked.) Mr Rzepela only received *carbon-copies* of messages sent to other individuals. My *original* response was to him, this list (which was delayed due to an error on my part; heaven forbid I actually be human and make mistakes), and two other individuals. >3. I would like a little more confidence in the forgery-sniffing > talents of someone who can't even manage to handle attributes, > send REPLIES to LIST MESSAGES to the LIST, or figure out from > standard attribute cues who did (or didn't) say something. >From the original message to List-Managers: Date: Tue, 05 Apr 1994 15:29:35 EDT From: "Anthony J. Rzepela" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Message-Id: <0097C821.0C986920.20120@cvi.hahnemann.edu> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Subject: AOL flexing some muscle (USENET posting) >4. I would like to think that before running around screaming > "Forgery! Forgery!" the AOL people would have more evidence > than how (un)believable they found the performance of the > sysadmins when answering questions. You are, of course, welcome to believe what you will. We are satisfied that the investigation performed by NASA on its equipment was sufficient. Clearly they must have found evidence which indicated *to them* that something had happened. Our role in this affair was to alert them to a possible security breach at one of their machines. Personally, I don't see what the continuation of this thread has to do with managing mailing lists, so I encourage further discussion to take place in a more appropriate forum. __ David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com, atropos@aol.net) \/ System Administrator, America Online, Inc. Tel.: +1 703/556-3725 From list-managers-owner Thu Apr 7 15:41:42 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA12615; Thu, 7 Apr 1994 15:41:42 GMT Received: from snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA12609; Thu, 7 Apr 1994 08:41:28 -0700 Received: by snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca (5.64/1.35) id AA23210; Thu, 7 Apr 94 11:41:22 -0400 From: stevep@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca (Steve Portigal) Message-Id: <9404071541.AA23210@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca> Subject: More on bitnet woes To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 11:41:20 EDT Organization: Your Company Name Here X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On May 1, we are told that The old-style e-mail addresses of userid@uoguelph (does not include the .ca) or userid@remotesite.BITNET will no longer work as of May 1st, 1994 I took that to mean that we could not receive mail to our bitnet address (which we don't use) but that we could still send. Perhaps that's not true. Here are all the errors I'm getting: >>> RCPT To: <<< 550 Host 'pucc.BITNET' Unknown 550 name@pucc.bitnet... User unknown of course, the pucc part is quite varied, including a whole range of bitnet sites. I'm still not sure if the problem is something being turned off at Guelph or something "out there" Steve -- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Portigal ** User-Interface Dude (looking for work) | | View my M.Sc. thesis online at: http://130.43.3.18/ | | stevep@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca Voice/Fax: (905) 632 6647 | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ From list-managers-owner Thu Apr 7 15:54:43 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA12698; Thu, 7 Apr 1994 15:54:43 GMT Received: from skigo.graphics.cornell.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA12692; Thu, 7 Apr 1994 08:54:34 -0700 Received: by skigo.graphics.cornell.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03949; Thu, 7 Apr 1994 11:53:20 -0400 Message-Id: <9404071553.AA03949@skigo.graphics.cornell.edu> To: stevep@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca (Steve Portigal) Cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: bitnet go bye-bye? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Apr 94 11:11:46 EDT." <9404071511.AA22846@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 94 11:53:20 -0400 From: Mitch Collinsworth X-Mts: smtp Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >At any rate the problem I'm >having is with BITNET users on my mailing list. They *all* bounced last >night. I'm wondering if there was some sudden shift from BITNET >address to the Internet-style equivalents. How does your system route mail to bitnet? If you're not directly connected, then it must be via a gateway. Did you try asking the gateway operator? Bitnet *is* going away in the near future. Cornell, for example, is shooting for a September 1 disconnect. >Do all BITNET sites have >Internet equivalents? Not necessarily, but if they want to stay connected they will soon. >On May 1, we are told that > The old-style e-mail addresses of userid@uoguelph (does not > include the .ca) or userid@remotesite.BITNET will no longer work > as of May 1st, 1994 > >I took that to mean that we could not receive mail to our bitnet >address (which we don't use) but that we could still send. Perhaps >that's not true. Here are all the errors I'm getting: > >>>> RCPT To: ><<< 550 Host 'pucc.BITNET' Unknown >550 name@pucc.bitnet... User unknown > >of course, the pucc part is quite varied, including a whole range >of bitnet sites. > >I'm still not sure if the problem is something being turned off at Guelph >or something "out there" Apparently vm.uoguelph.ca is the gateway you've been using and it's stopped working. Ask them if it's permanent or accidental. If permanent you need to move to a different gateway. -Mitch From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 8 07:46:54 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA17014; Fri, 8 Apr 1994 07:46:54 GMT Received: from Tux.Music.ASU.Edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id AAA17008; Fri, 8 Apr 1994 00:46:47 -0700 From: Ben.Goren@asu.edu Received: from Tux.Music.ASU.Edu by Tux.Music.ASU.Edu (5.64/A/UX-3.00) id AA00724; Thu, 7 Apr 94 09:55:20 MST Message-Id: <9404071655.AA00724@Tux.Music.ASU.Edu> X-Sender: ben@localhost Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 09:58:58 -0700 To: KRAV.DPCPO004@DSKMGWS1.itg.ti.com (Alan Kravitz), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Commercial Listserv Providers Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 2:45 PM 4/6/94 -0600, Alan Kravitz wrote: >[. . .] >TI does have a presence on the Internet, but for security reasons, we can't >host lists and provide anonymous ftp from computing resources on TI's >internal network. Therefore, we'd like to locate a service provider who is >in the business of providing these kinds of services. What not put a single machine on the other side of your firewall? It sounds like you've got all the expertise and equipment you need; why pay somebody else to do what you can do just as well yourself? >Again, any help from list managers would be greatly appreciated. > >Regards, >Alan Kravitz b& ---- Ben.Goren@asu.edu, Arizona State University School of Music Protect your privacy; oppose Clipper. Write to me for info. Finger ben@tux.music.asu.edu for PGP 2.3a public key. From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 8 14:45:20 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA18931; Fri, 8 Apr 1994 14:45:20 GMT Received: from CVI.HAHNEMANN.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA18925; Fri, 8 Apr 1994 07:45:10 -0700 Received: by cvi.hahnemann.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 20913; Fri, 08 Apr 1994 10:17:31 EDT Date: Fri, 08 Apr 1994 10:17:27 EDT From: "Anthony J. Rzepela" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Message-ID: <0097CA50.F130A300.20913@cvi.hahnemann.edu> Subject: It has a LOT to do with list management issues Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk pmdatropos@aol.com writes: > Personally, I don't see what the continuation of this thread has to do with > managing mailing lists, so I encourage further discussion to take place in a > more appropriate forum. It has a lot to do with it. AOLers (and others, for sure) have been a list management headache for some time. Some of us have shorter tempers than others. A thorough airing of the true sequence of events in this debacle, is, IMHO, extremely important to anyone even toying with the idea of making AOL angry. > Mr Rzepela only received *carbon-copies* of messages sent to other > individuals. My *original* response was to him, this list (which was delayed > due to an error on my part; heaven forbid I actually be human and make > mistakes), and two other individuals. I get the digest. I still haven't seen either of the messages you sent to me appear here, except that I was gracious enough to forward the first one. Regardless of where they were supposed to go, you DID, in the second, attribute someone else's moaning about AOL to me, and that attribution was WRONG. Seeing the heavy penalties one suffers for moaning about AOL these days, that is a pretty serious misattribution. > You are, of course, welcome to believe what you will. We are satisfied that > the investigation performed by NASA on its equipment was sufficient. You were also satisfied that you knew how to work email. > Clearly they must have found evidence which indicated *to them* > that something had happened. You have absolutely no basis for saying that. Unless there was some other mail that still hasn't gotten from you to the list, I have seen NO evidence that the "government" site did anything except shut down a filmmakers' list, which, while annoying, is certainly within their domain (i.e., making sure their resources are being spent as they see fit). > Our role in this affair was to alert them to a possible security > breach at one of their machines. And what, exactly, was this "security breach"? What measures, exactly, did they take, apart from shutting down a list that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, a piece of information probably discovered in their "investigation"? This statement: > Clearly they must have found evidence which indicated *to them* > that something had happened. is just stoopid. Sounds to me like somebody pissed off AOL, and paid. If that's the way you people operate, it IS a list managers' issue. +------ Anthony J. Rzepela rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu -----+ | Hahnemann University, Philadelphia (215) 762-7741 | | I do not speak for, or represent, Hahnemann University or AHERF. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 8 18:52:16 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA20548; Fri, 8 Apr 1994 18:52:16 GMT Received: from albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA20535; Fri, 8 Apr 1994 11:51:52 -0700 From: tower@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu by albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Fri, 8 Apr 94 14:51:15 -0400 Received: by nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu (15.11/4.0) id ; Fri, 8 Apr 94 14:51:11 edt Date: Fri, 8 Apr 94 14:51:11 edt Message-Id: <9404081851.AA02487@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <0097CA50.F130A300.20913@cvi.hahnemann.edu> "rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu" Reply-To: tower@prep.ai.mit.edu Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation, 675 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139-3309, USA +1-617-876-3296 Home: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA 02143, USA +1-617-623-7739 Subject: It has a LOT to do with list management issues Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk oland From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 8 20:26:23 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA21212; Fri, 8 Apr 1994 20:26:23 GMT Received: from mailgate.prod.aol.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA21206; Fri, 8 Apr 1994 13:25:55 -0700 From: pmdatropos@aol.com Received: by mailgate.prod.aol.net (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA24685; Fri, 8 Apr 94 16:22:28 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Message-Id: <9404081622.tn556416@aol.com> To: list-managers@GREATCIRCLE.COM Date: Fri, 08 Apr 94 16:22:26 EDT Subject: Re: It has a LOT to do with l... Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu writes: [ ... ] >AOLers (and others, for sure) have been a list management headache >for some time. Some of us have shorter tempers than others. A >thorough airing of the true sequence of events in this debacle, is, >IMHO, extremely important to anyone even toying with the idea of >making AOL angry. And the true sequence has been aired. To summarise: (1) Several weeks ago I received bounced mail which indicated that a USENET article allegedly by me was being returned for bad headers. (2) Since this article did not originate from me, we contacted the postmasters at the sites where the mail had either originated or traversed a connection. The responses from all by the postmaster@grissom.larc.nasa.gov were sufficiently authoritative to satisfy our concerns. (3) Since the postmaster@grissom..'s was not, we were concerned that there may have been a security breach at that site. We contacted NASA and informed them of our concern. (4) Several days later we recived mail from NASA indicating they had investigated the event and that they considered the case closed. (5) An article alleging that America Online had complained to Scott Dorsey's management of his "mail forgery" and "misuse of government equipment", and calling for a complaint campaign, appeared in this and other lists and newsgroups. (6) I responded to this initial wave with the situation as it took place on our side, mentioning repeatedly that Mr Dorsey was *NOT* accused of any wrongdoing, and that we at NO TIME asked his management to tell him to shut down the filmmakers list. To be blunt, the claims in the letter sent here and elsewhere are completely fraudulent. (7) Since this event has been dragged out, we have contacted NASA again for further details. We were informed that NASA had obtained conclusive evidence that grissom.larc.nasa.gov was involved in the forgery of a USENET article. >Regardless of where they were supposed to go, you DID, >in the second, attribute someone else's moaning about AOL to me, >and that attribution was WRONG. Seeing the heavy penalties one >suffers for moaning about AOL these days, that is a pretty serious >misattribution. Seeing that the "heavy penalties one suffers" are baseless, I assume you can draw your own conclusions. >> Clearly they must have found evidence which indicated *to them* >> that something had happened. >You have absolutely no basis for saying that. See points (4) and (7), above. I have more than enough reason to state the above. >Unless there was some other mail that still hasn't gotten from >you to the list, I have seen NO evidence that the "government" >site did anything except shut down a filmmakers' list, which, >while annoying, is certainly within their domain (i.e., making sure >their resources are being spent as they see fit). Again, see (7). I will reiterate AGAIN that we were not involved in any effort to shut down the filmmakers list. >> Our role in this affair was to alert them to a possible security >> breach at one of their machines. >And what, exactly, was this "security breach"? What measures, >exactly, did they take, apart from shutting down a list that >wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, a piece of information >probably discovered in their "investigation"? See the numbered items above. NASA did not divulge their methods to us, and I do not particularly see why we have reason to question them. >Sounds to me like somebody pissed off AOL, and paid. No, it sounds like someone is trying to mount yet another bash-America Online campaign. >If that's the way you people operate, it IS a list managers' issue. It's not the way we operate. __ David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com, atropos@aol.net) \/ System Administrator, America Online, Inc. Tel.: +1 703/556-3725 From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 8 23:07:18 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA21892; Fri, 8 Apr 1994 23:07:18 GMT Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA21885; Fri, 8 Apr 1994 16:07:13 -0700 Message-Id: <199404082307.QAA21885@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: list-managers@GREATCIRCLE.COM Subject: Re: It has a LOT to do with l... Date: Fri, 08 Apr 1994 16:07:11 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Folks, this is getting a little personal. List-Managers is a remarkably flame-free list, and I'd like it to stay that way. Thanks! -Brent -- Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | Call or email for info about Brent@GreatCircle.COM | 1057 West Dana Street | upcoming Internet Security +1 415 962 0841 | Mountain View, CA 94041 | Firewalls Tutorial dates From list-managers-owner Sun Apr 10 00:23:37 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id AAA01365; Sun, 10 Apr 1994 00:23:37 GMT Received: from tanuki.twics.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA01218; Sat, 9 Apr 1994 17:04:57 -0700 Received: by tanuki.twics.com (MX V4.0 VAX) id 26; Sun, 10 Apr 1994 09:05:22 JST Date: Sun, 10 Apr 1994 09:05:20 JST From: dkanagy@twics.com Reply-To: dkanagy@twics.com To: LIST-MANAGERS@GREATCIRCLE.COM Message-ID: <0097CBD9.332DF260.26@tanuki.twics.com> Subject: Missing subscriber list Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I administer a list for Japanese/English translators at NETCOM called HONYAKU. I recently ran into an unsettling problem. One person managed to subscribe to the list with a nonstandard address that was causing repeated delivery errors. As a result, I decided to unsubscribe the address since this person wasn't receiving anything from the list anyway and since the address was just cluttering up my mailbox. (This is not the unsettling problem.) But in trying to do so, majordomo at NETCOM did not accept my command, saying there was no match for the address I tried to unsubscribe. Wondering if there might be a discrepancy between the address I tried to unsubscribe and how the address was actually recorded, I sent the "who honyaku" command to confirm. This yielded a list with no names on it. This morning a submission by someone who has been on the list for some time bounced, someone whose address I know is valid. (I have HONYAKU set to external moderation.) Also, I received e-mail from the list server saying a new person had subscribed. Doing another "who honyaku," I received a list with only one person on it--the latest subscriber. This suggests to me that the list of HONYAKU subscribers at NETCOM has been wiped out for some reason. If true, this is extremely unsettling. What could cause something like this and how can I prevent this from happening again? Naturally, I'm raising the matter with NETCOM but I'm also asking the question here to see what I can learn about this problem. I'm quite new at administering mailing lists. HONYAKU got its start the first week of March. Any help or advice with this problem will be greatly appreciated. ________________________________________________________________________ Dan Kanagy dkanagy@twics.com Tokyo, Japan dkanagy@netcom.com From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 11 11:38:51 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA08718; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 11:38:51 GMT Received: from ifi.uio.no by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA08712; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 04:38:43 -0700 Received: from solva.ifi.uio.no (1232@solva.ifi.uio.no [129.240.70.2]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.8.1/ifi2.4) id for ; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 13:38:31 +0200 From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by solva.ifi.uio.no ; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 13:38:30 +0200 Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 13:38:30 +0200 Message-Id: <199404111138.6088.solva.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Transient failures == lots of warnings Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I run a couple of moderate sized mailing lists by hand with traditional Unix software. Lately, I've been getting storms of "bounces" from mail hosts which think it is proper to notify the sender that the mail has been in the queue for 4 hours or a day without successful delivery. This is fine for personal correspendence, but it just a nuisance and a waste of bandwidth to do this for mailing lists. That's the problem. Is there a solution? I would like the possibility to add information that I don't want warning bounces somewhere in the headers. Some people put a Priority header in their mail. Are any mail configurations set up so as to for example neglect sending bounces to messages with "Priority: junk"? Any ideas welcome. Kjetil T. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 11 13:52:35 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA09337; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 13:52:35 GMT Received: from ncar.UCAR.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id GAA09331; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 06:52:21 -0700 From: woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) Message-Id: <199404111350.HAA04146@ncar.ucar.EDU> Received: from localhost by ncar.ucar.EDU (8.6.5/ NCAR Central Post Office 03/11/93) id HAA04146; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 07:50:03 -0600 Subject: Re: Transient failures == lots of warnings To: kjetilho@ifi.uio.no (Kjetil Torgrim Homme) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 7:50:02 MDT Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199404111138.6088.solva.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no>; from "Kjetil Torgrim Homme" at Apr 11, 94 1:38 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I can't speak for the general case, but we have a queue warning mechanism in place here, that sends warning messages after 1 hour and after 24 hours (our post office machine will bounce the entire message if it has not been delivered for 5 days, and our users complained vigorously about not having any way to know if their mail is still queued on the post office system during that time). Our particular program is designed to only send these warnings to senders within our own domain. The point of mentioning this is that there is not, to my knowledge, any standard way of implementing this. We did it from scratch. The site in question probably did so as well; you might try contacting the postmaster at that particular site. They may simply not realize that the messages are annoying to you. --Greg (postmaster@ucar.edu) From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 11 14:08:12 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA09413; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 14:08:12 GMT Received: from de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA09407; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 07:08:02 -0700 Received: (from de5@localhost) by de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV (8.6.7/8.6.6) id KAA17520; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 10:07:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 10:07:44 -0400 From: Dave Sill Message-Id: <199404111407.KAA17520@de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV> To: woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) Cc: kjetilho@ifi.uio.no (Kjetil Torgrim Homme), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Transient failures == lots of warnings In-Reply-To: <199404111350.HAA04146@ncar.ucar.EDU> References: <199404111138.6088.solva.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> <199404111350.HAA04146@ncar.ucar.EDU> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >I can't speak for the general case, but we have a queue warning mechanism >in place here, that sends warning messages after 1 hour and after 24 hours >(our post office machine will bounce the entire message if it has not been >delivered for 5 days, and our users complained vigorously about not >having any way to know if their mail is still queued on the post office >system during that time). Our particular program is designed to only send >these warnings to senders within our own domain. > >The point of mentioning this is that there is not, to my knowledge, >any standard way of implementing this. We did it from scratch. The >site in question probably did so as well; you might try contacting >the postmaster at that particular site. They may simply not realize >that the messages are annoying to you. This is a standard feature of sendmail 8. From my sendmail.cf: # default message timeout interval OT5d/4h Which means bounce after 5 days, warn after 4 hours. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) I dream of a televisionland where it will be Martin Marietta Energy Systems as hard for a network to expose us to violence Workstation Support as it is for me to tell someone they have spinach on their teeth. --Paula Poundstone URL http://www.dec.com/pub/DEC/DECinfo/html/dsill.html From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 11 16:06:36 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA10017; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 16:06:36 GMT Received: from mv.mv.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA10011; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 09:06:22 -0700 Received: by mv.mv.com (8.6.8/mem-931109) id MAA28471; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 12:06:13 -0400 From: "Mark E. Mallett" Message-Id: <199404111606.MAA28471@mv.mv.com> Subject: Re: Transient failures == lots of warnings To: kjetilho@ifi.uio.no (Kjetil Torgrim Homme) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 12:06:13 -0400 (WET DST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199404111138.6088.solva.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> from "Kjetil Torgrim Homme" at Apr 11, 94 01:38:30 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL17] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 470 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > Lately, I've been getting storms of "bounces" from mail hosts which > think it is proper to notify the sender that the mail has been in the > queue for 4 hours or a day without successful delivery. This is fine > for personal correspendence, but it just a nuisance and a waste of > bandwidth to do this for mailing lists. I believe that if you put a "Precedence: list" in your mail header, sendmail will abstain from sending you those warning-only messages. -mm- From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 11 18:36:30 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA10397; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 18:36:30 GMT Received: from spiff.ccs.carleton.ca by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA10391; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 11:36:18 -0700 Received: by spiff.ccs.carleton.ca (4.1/SMI-4.0-mcr) id AA10028; Mon, 11 Apr 94 14:37:05 EDT Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 14:37:05 EDT From: mcr@spiff.ccs.carleton.ca (Michael Richardson) Message-Id: <9404111837.AA10028@spiff.ccs.carleton.ca> To: woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU Cc: kjetilho@ifi.uio.no, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Greg Woods's message of Mon, 11 Apr 94 7:50:02 MDT <199404111350.HAA04146@ncar.ucar.EDU> Subject: Transient failures == lots of warnings Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Most UUCP implementations provide for no-connection warnings. This is usually implemented in the 'uucleanup' command, and is called from uudemon.daily. This is a transport level thing, so it bounces queued news as well as queued mail, and does not examine headers. The only way I can see modifying that behaviour would be via a flag to uux, and patches to sendmail/smail to allow choice of deliver agent based on Priority: header. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 11 19:02:18 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA10516; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 19:02:18 GMT Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA10510; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 12:02:08 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id PAA09125; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 15:01:20 -0400 Message-Id: <199404111901.PAA09125@wilma.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: "Mark E. Mallett" cc: kjetilho@ifi.uio.no (Kjetil Torgrim Homme), list-managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Transient failures == lots of warnings In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Apr 1994 12:06:13 EDT." <199404111606.MAA28471@mv.mv.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 15:01:18 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I believe that if you put a "Precedence: list" in your mail header, > sendmail will abstain from sending you those warning-only messages. Beware: there is at least one mail gateway that will bounce any message that contains a Precedence header with a keyword that it doesn't recognize. In general, it's dangerous to specify any MTA behavior in the header, not just because it's a layering violation, but also because there's no agreement among MTAs to conform to the expected behavior. Keith From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 11 19:20:06 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA10564; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 19:20:06 GMT Received: from mv.mv.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA10556; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 12:19:52 -0700 Received: by mv.mv.com (8.6.8/mem-931109) id PAA26411; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 15:19:16 -0400 From: "Mark E. Mallett" Message-Id: <199404111919.PAA26411@mv.mv.com> Subject: Re: Transient failures == lots of warnings To: moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 15:19:15 -0400 (WET DST) Cc: kjetilho@ifi.uio.no, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, moore@cs.utk.edu In-Reply-To: <199404111901.PAA09125@wilma.cs.utk.edu> from "Keith Moore" at Apr 11, 94 03:01:18 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL17] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1272 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > I believe that if you put a "Precedence: list" in your mail header, > > sendmail will abstain from sending you those warning-only messages. > > Beware: there is at least one mail gateway that will bounce any > message that contains a Precedence header with a keyword that > it doesn't recognize. Which mail gateway did you have in mind? > In general, it's dangerous to specify any MTA behavior in the header, > not just because it's a layering violation, but also because there's no > agreement among MTAs to conform to the expected behavior. Perhaps, but it's convenient and at least partially achieves the result. I note, for instance, that your mail to me (which I am quoting) arrived with a "Precedence: bulk" in the header. People use this because it works for many cases, and although some mail systems ignore it, it is better to use it and have some advantage from it, than not to use it and have no advantage from it. The killer that you mentioned above (a mail gateway that rejects mail with header elements it doesn't like) would seem to present a choice between two evils, and you pick which one you want to deal with. Best if that mail gateway could be convinced that it didn't have an absolute knowledge of what was best for everyone. :-) -mm- From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 11 21:02:25 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA10870; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 21:02:25 GMT Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA10864; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 14:02:12 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id RAA09241; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 17:01:24 -0400 Message-Id: <199404112101.RAA09241@wilma.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: "Mark E. Mallett" cc: moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore), kjetilho@ifi.uio.no, list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Transient failures == lots of warnings In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Apr 1994 15:19:15 EDT." <199404111919.PAA26411@mv.mv.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 17:01:23 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > > I believe that if you put a "Precedence: list" in your mail header, > > > sendmail will abstain from sending you those warning-only messages. > > > > Beware: there is at least one mail gateway that will bounce any > > message that contains a Precedence header with a keyword that > > it doesn't recognize. > > Which mail gateway did you have in mind? I don't know the exact name. It's a DEC product for gatewaying between RFC 822 mail on Ultrix and mailbus. The problem was, for mail to the Internet, it tried to map the mailbus "precedence" value into the 822 precedence header, and they don't have the same meaning. (not that the 822 meaning is defined.) > > In general, it's dangerous to specify any MTA behavior in the header, > > not just because it's a layering violation, but also because there's > > no agreement among MTAs to conform to the expected behavior. > > Perhaps, but it's convenient and at least partially achieves the > result. But at what cost? These things cause real operational problems in the global Internet mail system. > I note, for instance, that your mail to me (which I am > quoting) arrived with a "Precedence: bulk" in the header. People > use this because it works for many cases, and although some mail > systems ignore it, it is better to use it and have some advantage > from it, than not to use it and have no advantage from it. Again, you have to consider the cost. As it turns out, I have experience that "Precedence: bulk" doesn't cause problems with that particular gateway, but that "Precedence: junk" does. So I made a design decision in my own list expander to label list traffic with "Precedence: bulk" to keep from getting messages from vacation. (I'm pretty sure that the same gateway would bounce "Precedence: list") The amount of brain-damage results from using ad hoc protocols keeps increasing. I realize that things like Precedence, Return-Receipt-To, and Errors-To were created to address real needs and aren't going to go away anytime soon -- certainly not until there's a better mechanism that's widely deployed. But I want to discourage people from inventing/using new ad-hoc mechanisms, especially by specifying MTA-level functionality at the UA-level protocol. Such actions deteriorate the reliability of the Internet mail system. Keith From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 11 22:39:48 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA11273; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 22:39:48 GMT Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA11267; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 15:39:41 -0700 Received: (pjg@localhost) by urth (8.6.8/8.6.4) id SAA26372 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 18:39:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 18:39:45 -0400 From: Paul Graham Message-Id: <199404112239.SAA26372@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: return-receipt-to: attack Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk a list i'm on (operlist@kei.com) received a message with return-receipt-to: operlist@kei.com. this turns out to be a bit annoying. has anyone else seen this? anything besides sendmail susceptible? what sorts of techniques are used to deal with this? the lists i run elide the line so i assume that this will only encourage sendmail the one time. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 11 23:27:27 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA11431; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 23:27:27 GMT Received: from bluejay.creighton.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA11425; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 16:27:13 -0700 Message-Id: <199404112327.QAA11425@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> Received: by bluejay.creighton.edu (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA06002; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 18:26:48 -0500 From: Larry Sheldon Subject: Re: return-receipt-to: attack To: pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 18:26:47 CDT Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199404112239.SAA26372@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu>; from "Paul Graham" at Apr 11, 94 6:39 pm Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85.2.1] Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Paul Graham said: > a list i'm on (operlist@kei.com) received a message with > return-receipt-to: operlist@kei.com. this turns out to be a bit > annoying. has anyone else seen this? anything besides sendmail > susceptible? what sorts of techniques are used to deal with this? > the lists i run elide the line so i assume that this will only > encourage sendmail the one time. We had the problem here, but I don't think it was sendmail that was the major problem--as near as I can tell, the first MTA to hanndle some of the return requests, send a reply back, but the major problem was that majordomo passed the offending headers (there are at least two to worry about) thru-- and every Pegasus UA sent the reply back to the list, which sent . . . and so on and so on. I hacked majordomo to throw the offending headers away on input. I can probably find the hack and pass it along if anybody is interested in it. Your mileage may vary. -- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- . L. F. (Larry) Sheldon, Jr. . - Unix Systems Administration - . Creighton University Computer Center - Old Gym . - 2500 California Plaza - . Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A. 68178 . - 402 280 2254 lsheldon@creighton.edu - . . - A hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong. - .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. From list-managers-owner Thu Apr 14 18:15:22 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA27104; Thu, 14 Apr 1994 18:15:22 GMT Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA27097; Thu, 14 Apr 1994 11:15:08 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id OAA18929; Thu, 14 Apr 1994 14:14:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199404141814.OAA18929@wilma.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: "Mark E. Mallett" cc: moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore), kjetilho@ifi.uio.no, list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Transient failures == lots of warnings In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Apr 1994 15:19:15 EDT." <199404111919.PAA26411@mv.mv.com> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 14:14:21 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Another comment re: "precedence: list" > The killer that you mentioned above (a mail gateway that rejects mail > with header elements it doesn't like) would seem to present a choice > between two evils, and you pick which one you want to deal with. > Best if that mail gateway could be convinced that it didn't have > an absolute knowledge of what was best for everyone. :-) This is just the "agreement" problem in disguise. Sendmail has its own idea of what "precedence" means. In the mailbus environment, "precedence" means something different, which has nothing to do with whether transient failure reports, vacation messages, etc., should be issued. No doubt both of these are "convinced" that their use of the precedence header doesn't cause any problems for anyone else. ``When I use a word,'' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ``it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'' ``The question is,'' said Alice, ``whether you _can_ make words mean so many different things.'' ``The question is,'' said Humpty Dumpty, ``which is to be master-- that's all.'' - from Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 16 01:10:30 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id BAA07491; Sat, 16 Apr 1994 01:10:30 GMT Received: from relay1.UU.NET by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA07485; Fri, 15 Apr 1994 18:10:23 -0700 From: asharpe@sco.COM Received: from sco.sco.COM by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwluq12473; Fri, 15 Apr 94 21:10:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 21:10:31 -0400 Resent-Message-Id: <9404160110.AAwluq12473@relay1.UU.NET> Message-Id: <9404160110.AAwluq12473@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from ergo.sco.COM by sco.sco.COM id aa28031; Fri, 15 Apr 94 19:13:25 PDT Resent-From: Andrew Sharpe Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 18:06:24 -0700 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92) Resent-To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Apparently-To: Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk From asharpe Fri Apr 15 17:53:03 1994 Received: from srv150a.sco.COM by ergo.sco.com id aa07809; 15 Apr 94 17:53 PDT Received: from sco.sco.COM by srv150a.sco.com id aa28207; 15 Apr 94 17:59 PDT Received: from SGI.COM by sco.sco.COM id aa27423; Fri, 15 Apr 94 18:55:50 PDT Received: from payday2 by sgi.sgi.com via UUCP (931110.SGI/910110.SGI) for asharpe@sco.COM id AA06295; Fri, 15 Apr 94 17:52:53 -0700 Received: by payday2 (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00411; Fri, 15 Apr 94 17:51:46 PDT Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 17:51:46 PDT Message-Id: <9404160051.AA00411@payday2> To: asharpe@sco.COM Subject: Re: Please Subscribe From: Intuitive Systems Postmaster Your message to Digital Games cannot be delivered because the electronic magazine has been permanently shut down. If you can notify the person, list, or site that supplied you with the information on Digital Games, that'll ensure that others don't also go through this confusion. Questions? Feel free to drop me a note at "taylor@intuitive.com". Happy gaming! -- Dave Taylor former editor, Digital Games Review ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- YOUR ORIGINAL MESSAGE: for payday2!digital-games.intuitive.com!digital-games-request id AA06222; Fri, 15 Apr 94 17:51:12 -0700 (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwlup08846; Fri, 15 Apr 94 20:51:10 -0400 From: Andrew Sharpe Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 17:47:01 -0700 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92) To: digital-games.intuitive.com!digital-games-request@intuitive.com Subject: Please Subscribe Message-Id: <9404151747.aa07792@ergo.sco.com> SUBSCRIBE Andrew Sharpe From list-managers-owner Thu Apr 21 21:38:40 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA01848; Thu, 21 Apr 1994 21:38:40 GMT Received: from walt.disney.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA01842; Thu, 21 Apr 1994 14:38:32 -0700 From: sullivan@fa.disney.com Received: from dalsdb by walt.disney.com with SMTP id AA22224 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.3 for List-Managers@greatcircle.com); Wed, 20 Apr 1994 17:20:23 -0700 Received: by dalsdb (Smail3.1.28.1 #53) id m0ptmSL-000Fc9C; Wed, 20 Apr 94 17:17 PDT Message-Id: Date: Wed, 20 Apr 94 17:17 PDT To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This is a topic I alluded to in an earlier post but now I actually have to deal with: tremendous list membership growth. In less than a year my "weights" list has gone from under 500 subscribers and a mailing (it's digest-only) pretty much every day to over 1400 subscribers today and days with more than one mailing due to the number of contributions not uncommon. It's so big that I can only send the issues out at night or face the wrath of everybody here for clogging up the mail queue. Actually my main reason for asking about the list breakup is the volume of contributions rather than the number of subscribers. People are actually leaving the list because they don't want to wade through all of the contributions. I want people to find the list useful but if it's too cluttered, it becomes less useful. I've started a discussion on the list of possibly narrowing the focus of the list and breaking off part into a newsgroup so we'll see how that goes. I guess my question is, how are you folks handling this recent growth spurt (if you're seeing one)? Is your volume becoming such that there's just too much information? How are your machines handling the volume? If you think things are bad now, what do you think is going to happen in the next year? Michael Sullivan sullivan@fa.disney.com Walt Disney Feature Animation +1 818 544 2683 (voice) Glendale, CA +1 818 544 4579 (fax) From list-managers-owner Thu Apr 21 22:41:48 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA02412; Thu, 21 Apr 1994 22:41:48 GMT Received: from apple.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA02406; Thu, 21 Apr 1994 15:41:40 -0700 Received: by apple.com (5.61/8-Oct-1993-eef) id AA27470; Thu, 21 Apr 94 15:42:01 -0700 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 21 Apr 94 15:42:01 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Message-Id: <9404212242.AA27470@apple.com> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, sullivan@fa.disney.com Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >I guess my question is, how are you folks handling this recent growth spurt >(if you're seeing one)? Is your volume becoming such that there's just >too much information? How are your machines handling the volume? If >you think things are bad now, what do you think is going to happen in >the next year? I've just switched from a manual system to listproc (with fewer glitches than expected, too), but beyond that, I took the time to restructure two of the three lists we run here. the minor league list got split in two, minors and minors-scores, because that seemed to be a logical break in the data. The SF Giants list is now four: giants, giants-tickets (buy/sell), giants-scores and baseball-caht (for all that stuff that we'd love to send to rec.sports.baseball, but we can't tolerate the noise). We're probably also going to split the Sharks list into four pieces soon. fortunately, the lists have certain sub-sets of information that pretty clearly have audiences that polarize. People either are or aren't interested in buying tickets to games, so by splitting it off, we clear that stuff out of the boxes of the "aren't" group without impacting the "are". So far (very early returns), it seems to be working. From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 22 12:18:33 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA06234; Fri, 22 Apr 1994 12:18:33 GMT Received: from z.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA06228; Fri, 22 Apr 1994 05:18:26 -0700 Received: from localhost (mmorse@localhost) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id IAA29207; Fri, 22 Apr 1994 08:18:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199404221218.IAA29207@z.nsf.gov> From: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 08:18:20 EDT In-Reply-To: sullivan@fa.disney.com "Superhighway Growth" (Apr 20, 5:17pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: sullivan@fa.disney.com, List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > If > you think things are bad now, what do you think is going to happen in > the next year? I think it's going to get unmanageable everywhere. Netnews, which is much better able to handle this architecturally is already swamped in many topics. Some topics just don't split well. In other words, if you split them, almost all members subscribe to all the splits. The only solution I can think of is multiple communities discussing the same subject. In other words, multiple independent mailing lists that discuss the same topic. A person would pick one to join, and only discuss with folks on that list. In a way, this is already happening on things like Compuserv or AOL, where you only discuss with other people who pay the same vendor to be a member. But those services will eventually be so big they have the same problem. How would one decide which list to join? Geographical separation occurred to me first, but it doesn't make that much sense on the Internet. This wouldn't be a perfect solution (or even close) since many people with obscure questions would post to all the lists on the topic, and there would be a great need for cross-fertilization, such as maintaining FAQ lists. To use an example from the "real" world: You can't have a "discussion" in a room with 500 participants. The only solution I see is to break the group up into smaller groups. I don't think there are any examples of where this has been tried, though. --Mike From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 22 12:46:36 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA06341; Fri, 22 Apr 1994 12:46:36 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA06334; Fri, 22 Apr 1994 05:46:15 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA25510; Fri, 22 Apr 94 08:43:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 08:37:34 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth To: "Michael H. Morse" Cc: sullivan@fa.disney.com, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199404221218.IAA29207@z.nsf.gov> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 22 Apr 1994, Michael H. Morse wrote: > I think it's going to get unmanageable everywhere. Netnews, which is > much better able to handle this architecturally is already swamped in > many topics. Some topics just don't split well. In other words, if > you split them, almost all members subscribe to all the splits. True, but threading goes a long way to help this. It isn't necessary for you to read every message in a newsgroup -- only the ones on the subtopics that catch your attention. Add to this various autoselection tools and "scoring" newsreaders, and you've gained the ability to wade through a tremendous amount of information intelligently. I don't see how this helps mailing lists, though. Perhaps the mail as a conference tool will be of diminishing importance as more powerful network conferencing systems are developed. Lists will be confined to small groups of friends or specialized topics which aren't discussed widely enough to warrant a newsgroup. David. From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 22 16:53:44 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA07828; Fri, 22 Apr 1994 16:53:44 GMT Received: from Tux.Music.ASU.Edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA07822; Fri, 22 Apr 1994 09:53:37 -0700 From: Ben.Goren@asu.edu Received: from Tux.Music.ASU.Edu by Tux.Music.ASU.Edu (5.64/A/UX-3.00) id AA26053; Fri, 22 Apr 94 09:54:35 MST Message-Id: <9404221654.AA26053@Tux.Music.ASU.Edu> X-Sender: ben@localhost Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 09:54:52 -0700 To: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse), sullivan@fa.disney.com, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I think it likely that we'll see an increasing number of lists with a small number of "regulars" and vast numbers of lurkers. That's already happened on my favorite lists; I suspect that some lists will have such a structure mandated by their owners. A suggestion some of you might wish to consider: pick a dozen or so regulars you've got now, people whom you trust, and make them all list editors . (With Eric Thomas' LISTSERV, mail sent to the list goes to editors, if specified, and only an editor or an owner can actually post. I suspect other programs have similar facilities.) Then, if somebody wants to post, it first gets filtered through the regulars. If any one of them thinks it's worth passing on to the list, it goes through. If the editors wish, they can come to some sort of consensus to add new people to their ranks. With a carefully selected group of editors, you'll have most points of view already covered, and, presumably a mechanism where others who have something "worthwhile" to say will be heard. It'd have to be done carefully, but it could save an otherwise sinking list. And those who don't like it can always start their own lists. (:-) b& ---- Ben.Goren@asu.edu, Arizona State University School of Music Protect your privacy; oppose Clipper. Write to me for info. Finger ben@tux.music.asu.edu for PGP 2.3a public key. From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 22 16:56:28 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA07867; Fri, 22 Apr 1994 16:56:28 GMT Received: from unixg.ubc.ca by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA07861; Fri, 22 Apr 1994 09:56:20 -0700 Received: by unixg.ubc.ca (4.1/1.14) id AA25905; Fri, 22 Apr 94 09:56:43 PDT Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 09:56:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Porter Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199404221218.IAA29207@z.nsf.gov> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Perhaps as growth goes geometric the diseconomies of scale for open access mail and news groups will force gate keeping by moderators. This has been the experience with ECOLOG-L/sci.bio.ecology, where the sheer volume of newsgroup noise forced the list owner of ECOLOG-L to filter the gateway. The explosion of messages is inevitable for mail reflectors; however software already exists to filter subscribers and exclude non-members. I believe the real problem will lie with straight mail. Just as it pays for marketers to seek out and compile smail addresses, it will pay marketers to do the same for email. And they can set up there own mail reflectors (particularly if they access through PFS servers, such as Compu$erve or AOL, or if they have their own net access). I cannot prevent people from sending directly to my address. I am far more concerned with junk mail sent directly to me, rather than via reflectors and listserv/listproc and its variants. richard m porter From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 22 19:11:39 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA08657; Fri, 22 Apr 1994 19:11:39 GMT Received: from eros.britain.eu.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA08651; Fri, 22 Apr 1994 12:11:25 -0700 Received: from andersen.co.uk by eros.britain.eu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 22 Apr 1994 20:10:57 +0100 Received: by andersen.co.uk (4.1/sp-0.1) id AA01375; Fri, 22 Apr 94 15:13:08 BST Newsgroups: mail.list-managers-digest Path: sdpage From: sdpage@andersen.co.uk (Stephen Page) Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Message-Id: <1994Apr22.141304.1329@andersen.co.uk> Organization: Andersen Consulting (UK Practice) References: <199404220810.BAA05156@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> Distribution: local Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 14:13:04 GMT Lines: 23 Apparently-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>I guess my question is, how are you folks handling this recent growth spurt >>(if you're seeing one)? I have also had a recent explosion in list size, largely because people do not read the charter before subscribing (therefore a large percentage of requests to my still-manual list come in sub/unsub pairs separated by a few weeks). I have been wondering whether we should try to encourage some of the large hub owners, eg aol.com, pan.com, etc to manage their own redistributions. We would just mail to incoming-listname@aol.com (etc) and the mapping to hundreds of interested people would be handled automagically at the gateway. This would surely be very much easier for those of us who manage lists (eg the hub owner could manage referential integrity between account and subscriptions, probably with limited effort); and if the interface were right then it would be much easier for the end user also. It would also shift the performance problem from the list maintainers to the recipients. Stephen Page Moderator, Music-Research Digest From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 23 03:36:51 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id DAA10764; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 03:36:51 GMT Received: from cyber.psych.ualberta.ca by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA10758; Fri, 22 Apr 1994 20:36:43 -0700 Received: from loa by cyber.psych.ualberta.ca (NX5.67d) id AA07684; Fri, 22 Apr 94 21:37:01 -0600 Received: by loa.psych.ualberta.ca (NX5.67d/NX3.0S) id AA00399; Fri, 22 Apr 94 21:31:20 -0600 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 94 21:31:20 -0600 From: Gary Finley Message-Id: <9404230331.AA00399@loa.psych.ualberta.ca> Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.100) Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.100) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Majordomo Reply-To: gfin@psych.ualberta.ca Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Skip my question of yesterday, thanks. Got your ftp addr from your finger message, and have nabbed Majordomo for a test drive. Looks like exactly what I was after, thanks. -------------------------------------------- Gary Finley, Univ. of Alberta Psychology Dept. gfin@psych.ualberta.ca (NeXTmail welcome!) From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 23 11:53:51 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA12143; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 11:53:51 GMT Received: from mailgate.prod.aol.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA12137; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 04:53:44 -0700 From: pmdatropos@aol.com Received: by mailgate.prod.aol.net (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA27209; Sat, 23 Apr 94 07:51:02 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Message-Id: <9404230750.tn74359@aol.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sat, 23 Apr 94 07:50:53 EDT Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From sdpage@andersen.co.uk [ ... ] >I have been wondering whether we should try to encourage some of the large >hub owners, eg aol.com, pan.com, etc to manage their own redistributions. >We would just mail to incoming-listname@aol.com (etc) and the mapping >to hundreds of interested people would be handled automagically at the >gateway. We (America Online) are working on a mechanism to provide mailing lists over our USENET news reader. Once testing is complete, we will be contacting list owners to work with them to provide their lists to our users in thi fashion. We believe that the provision of a single, stable point-of-presence will prove a benefit to the majority of mailing lists to which our members currently subscribe via e-mail. It will also have the benefit of decreasing our e-mail traffic somewhat, which last I heard was approximately 6,000,000 messages a month. __ David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com, atropos@aol.net) \/ System Administrator, America Online, Inc. Tel.: +1 703/556-3725 List Owner/Editor of Belief-L, GLB-News and SoftRevu From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 23 16:58:55 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA12758; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 16:58:55 GMT Received: from intercon.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA12751; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 09:58:48 -0700 Received: from localhost by intercon.com (Sendmail 8.6.5/940209.RS) id MAA18164; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 12:59:14 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 12:59:14 -0400 From: jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) Message-Id: <199404231659.MAA18164@intercon.com> To: pmdatropos@aol.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I must say that I disagree with the plan to feed mailing lists into newsgroups. For a great many of the mailing lists out there, I think that if the list maintainters /wanted/ a newsgroup, they would have started one already. Most of the lists I know /like/ having some control over the readers of their lists that is not given by a newsgroup. Anyone else feel this way? JB From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 23 17:03:45 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA12801; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 17:03:45 GMT Received: from intercon.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA12795; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 10:03:37 -0700 Received: from localhost by intercon.com (Sendmail 8.6.5/940209.RS) id NAA18227; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 13:04:06 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 13:04:06 -0400 From: jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) Message-Id: <199404231704.NAA18227@intercon.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: One of AOLs problems explained... Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From a social mailing list I'm on... -------------- From: Dave White Subject: oops! yah know folx, sometimes i fuck up in a really spectacular method. no great surprize there. but at least i admit it. as some of you know, America-OnLine [AOL] has recently provided their customers with internet access. these users have been flooding mailing lists and news groups with new users who do not know much about how the internet works. on one of the internet news groups, i recently posted a mild flame / gentle hint to the aol folx on how to make their post more acceptable, on a style basis. which included proper indentation of quotes, and an 80 character line length. i recieved several responses saying that they would really like to, but that the damned proprietary editor they had to use would not let them. i thought about this, then started to laugh. the AOL software is based on QuantumLink, which in turn was based on PlayNet's software. including a certain damned proprietary editor I wrote back in 1982. argh. legacy software that has not been kept up to current standards. DUH! flaming people for using some brain damaged software, that I wrote. sigh. davo ["Mom and dad say I should make my life an example of the principles I believe in. But every time I do, they tell me to stop it." calvin] From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 23 17:42:03 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA12905; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 17:42:03 GMT Received: from news.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA12899; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 10:41:56 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by news.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.1) id AA02008; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 13:41:42 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA06243; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 13:41:39 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 13:41:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth To: Jailbait Cc: pmdatropos@aol.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199404231659.MAA18164@intercon.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 23 Apr 1994, Jailbait wrote: > I must say that I disagree with the plan to feed mailing lists into > newsgroups. For a great many of the mailing lists out there, I think > that if the list maintainters /wanted/ a newsgroup, they would have > started one already. Most of the lists I know /like/ having some > control over the readers of their lists that is not given by a > newsgroup. > > Anyone else feel this way? > > JB I certainly do agree with you. I administrate lists that would go bonkers if the list membership - and communication exchanges- weren't controled in some way. I administrate large lists, two in particular, one addressing women's issues and one that is scientific interest. The largeness of the lists is working well, and managing to have great, diverse conversations without sacrificing that cozy feeling. It is still possible to have intimate conversation going on these large lists. Moving to a newsgroup would blow this away in a minute. -Sharon Owner/women@world.std.com /rocks-and-fossils@world.std.com /witi-east@mit.edu From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 23 17:56:54 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA12948; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 17:56:54 GMT Received: from mail.netcom.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA12942; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 10:56:48 -0700 Received: from localhost by mail.netcom.com (8.6.4/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id KAA10877; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 10:57:59 -0700 Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 10:57:58 -0700 (PDT) From: James Cook Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth To: Sharon Shea cc: Jailbait , pmdatropos@aol.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 23 Apr 1994, Sharon Shea wrote: > I certainly do agree with you. I administrate lists that would go bonkers > if the list membership - and communication exchanges- weren't controled in > some way. > > I administrate large lists, two in particular, one addressing women's > issues and one that is scientific interest. The largeness of the lists is > working well, and managing to have great, diverse conversations without > sacrificing that cozy feeling. It is still possible to have intimate > conversation going on these large lists. Moving to a newsgroup would blow > this away in a minute. > > -Sharon > Owner/women@world.std.com I would be very interested to hear how large these lists are. I am curious to know from the actual experience of list owners, just how large can a list get without losing a cozy feel and functional quality? Are we talking 200, 2000 people? Is there much degradation of discussion due to a lack of threading as occurs with newsgroups and so forth? At what size to people start quitting en mass because of volume, noise/signal ratio etc.? James From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 23 18:05:49 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA13000; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 18:05:49 GMT Received: from albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA12994; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 11:05:42 -0700 From: tower@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu by albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Sat, 23 Apr 94 14:05:51 -0400 Received: by nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu (15.11/4.0) id ; Sat, 23 Apr 94 14:05:48 edt Date: Sat, 23 Apr 94 14:05:48 edt Message-Id: <9404231805.AA21140@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: jailbait@intercon.com Cc: pmdatropos@aol.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199404231659.MAA18164@intercon.com> "jailbait@intercon.com" Reply-To: tower@prep.ai.mit.edu Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation, 675 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139-3309, USA +1-617-876-3296 Home: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA 02143, USA +1-617-623-7739 Subject: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 12:59:14 -0400 From: jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) Precedence: bulk I must say that I disagree with the plan to feed mailing lists into newsgroups. For a great many of the mailing lists out there, I think that if the list maintainters /wanted/ a newsgroup, they would have started one already. Most of the lists I know /like/ having some control over the readers of their lists that is not given by a newsgroup. Anyone else feel this way? JB I agree. And it's been common practice on all the gateways I know to at least ask the maintainers of a mailing list if they have any objections to having their list gated to and from a newsgroup, with an offer to answer questions about USENET and possible effects of the gateway, if they wish. Mailing lists and newsgroups are very different types of forums. thanx -len Coordinator, gnUSENET and Gnu Project Mailing Lists From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 23 18:34:33 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA13131; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 18:34:33 GMT Received: from news.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA13125; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 11:34:26 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by news.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.1) id AA07396; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 14:34:49 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA19209; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 14:34:47 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 14:34:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth To: James Cook Cc: Jailbait , pmdatropos@aol.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > I would be very interested to hear how large these lists are. I am > curious to know from the actual experience of list owners, just how large > can a list get without losing a cozy feel and functional quality? > > Are we talking 200, 2000 people? Is there much degradation of discussion > due to a lack of threading as occurs with newsgroups and so forth? At > what size to people start quitting en mass because of volume, > noise/signal ratio etc.? > > James > I had some complaints about too much traffic at around 100, but although the lists are both at around 500 now, the quality of the conversations has improved and there is no problem following threads. I think this is due in part to the fact that these lists have had time to grow at a gradual rate. Newcomers a one or two a day, they lurk for awhile, get a good sense of the regulars, and fit in after a bit. Also, I've done advertising for the lists in places where the people interested in these topics would hang out. This is both on-line (advertizing on other lists, gopher services) and in paper publications. I trek about on foot and contact people about this personally. I think this sort of effort pays off in list quality. Also, I do a _lotta_ list management, talking to individuals behind the list scenes, use appropriate prompt conversations, etc. Lotta work, but work it does. -Sharon From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 23 19:08:59 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA13239; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 19:08:59 GMT Received: from mail.netcom.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA13233; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 12:08:52 -0700 Received: from localhost by mail.netcom.com (8.6.4/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id MAA15147; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 12:10:21 -0700 Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 12:10:15 -0700 (PDT) From: James Cook Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth To: Sharon Shea cc: Jailbait , pmdatropos@aol.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 23 Apr 1994, Sharon Shea wrote: > I had some complaints about too much traffic at around 100, but although > the lists are both at around 500 now, the quality of the conversations > has improved and there is no problem following threads. I think this is > due in part to the fact that these lists have had time to grow at a > gradual rate. Newcomers a one or two a day, they lurk for awhile, get a > good sense of the regulars, and fit in after a bit. Interesting. I run some lists too. Have had some people quit due to volume, but most seem to gret their teeth and stay on if they're interested. I can't help but wonder what the ceiling is on size. You know, 1000, 3000? I also wonder how folks keep track of the message threads, and whether that changes as list size grows. Any thoughts? > > Also, I've done advertising for the lists in places where the people > interested in these topics would hang out. This is both on-line > (advertizing on other lists, gopher services) and in paper publications. > I trek about on foot and contact people about this personally. I think > this sort of effort pays off in list quality. This is very interesting too. I wonder if you're associated with the woman-started group that spun off of the Well? I read some articles about a women-only group, and wonder if that's your org.? It isas a BBS or something. Or perhaps a conferencing facility like the Well had. How does one "advertise" in a gopher service? I understand print media and word of mouth. But, where do you "park" an add on a gopher? James From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 23 22:14:30 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA13671; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 22:14:30 GMT Received: from Thinkage.On.CA by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA13665; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 15:13:59 -0700 Received: from localhost (hogreq@localhost) by thinkage.thinkage.on.ca (8.6.4/Thinkage940206) id SAA01916; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 18:13:45 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 18:13:45 -0400 From: Ken Dykes - Immoderator Message-Id: <199404232213.SAA01916@Thinkage.On.CA> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: AOL impresses me Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have written what is likely to be another "form letter" for my list duties. I'm in a sharing mood today... >Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 18:08:07 -0400 >From: Ken Dykes - Immoderator >Message-Id: <199404232208.SAA01798@Thinkage.On.CA> >To: hdchestnut@aol.com >Cc: listmaster@aol.com, support@aol.com >Subject: Re: rejected request to join the Harley Mailing List A while back you request: >From: >To: harley-request >Date: Sat, 16 Apr 94 20:49:26 EDT >Subject: request to join > >I have found this rather cryptic reference to a harley list that sounds very >interesting. I ride a '93 FLHS and would like to join this list/group. >HDChestnut@aol.comh and i reply with my standard form letter stating your request did not meet all my extra requirements for those wishing to subscribe via AOL. and i referred you specificially to listmaster@aol.com for more information. Today you respond: >From: >Date: Sat, 23 Apr 94 09:58:09 EDT >Subject: Re: rejected request to join the Harley Mailing List > >I don't want to start any flame wars, but I am not getting any good reasons >why my request to join your list was denied. I cannot use any other service >and AOL is my best $ value here for macintosh. Please elucidate what these >"extra requirements" are. As a dedicated Harley rider, (50 K miles in <4 >years) I am rather pissed at this nonsense. :-o Please restore my faith that >most Harley enthusiasts are reasonable, intelligent people by giving this >matter your attention. Thsanks in advance. Bill Chestnut You *are* in the middle of a nasty business. This involve Usenet/Internet/AOL politics and a history far too involved to attempt to explain in simple Email correspondence. Anyhow, here is some correspondence from your AOL listmaster: >From: >Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 14:18:11 EST >Subject: Re: Your mailing list >... >rights to manage your list as you see fit. To forestall future problems with >your list, I will have the entry deleted until such time as we receive more >information from you or an indication that the list is once again publicly >available. >... to which, at approximately 6pm March.26th i sent back the "form" he sent me for registering what requirements must be met to join the Harley mailing list. this form was returned to him approximately two weeks after his above message. this would've been plenty of time to "delete the entry" -- but i was getting daily indications he had not actually done so. I have not heard back from the listmaster and can only presume that he: a) deleted all references to the Harley list like HE volunteered (and thus, this conversation wouldn't even be happening) or b) has incorporated in a publically available location (mailing list database perhaps) the information i sent him in late march. I am NOT going to tell you, or aother AOL members, on an *individual* basis what the extra (quite trivial) requirements are. This information has been made available to AOL for THEM to provide its multitude of members. - Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] harley-request@thinkage.on.ca thinkage!harley-request From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 23 23:22:24 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA13835; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 23:22:24 GMT Received: from Tux.Music.ASU.Edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA13829; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 16:22:17 -0700 From: Ben.Goren@asu.edu Received: from Tux.Music.ASU.Edu by Tux.Music.ASU.Edu (5.64/A/UX-3.00) id AA27878; Sat, 23 Apr 94 16:23:13 MST Message-Id: <9404232323.AA27878@Tux.Music.ASU.Edu> X-Sender: ben@localhost Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 16:23:19 -0700 To: Sharon Shea , Jailbait Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Cc: pmdatropos@aol.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Let me add my vote that a newsgroup would be unwelcome. I'm the founder and co-owner of SINFONIA, a LISTSERV list for Brothers of Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, the men's professional fraternity in music. I and Dr. Robert Reynolds, the other owner, work hard to ensure that only Sinfonians have access to the list, as topics occasionally come up that we'd just as soon not be heard outside the fraternity. Besides which, I can't recall a discussion which would be interesting at all to anybody who wasn't a Brother.... I daresay that if Dr. Reynolds or I ever discovered that somebody was feeding our list into Usenet, we'd drop that person pronto. b& ---- Ben.Goren@asu.edu, Arizona State University School of Music Protect your privacy; oppose Clipper. Write to me for info. Finger ben@tux.music.asu.edu for PGP 2.3a public key. From list-managers-owner Sun Apr 24 02:31:41 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id CAA14275; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 02:31:41 GMT Received: from hustle.rahul.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA14267; Sat, 23 Apr 1994 19:31:32 -0700 Received: from bolero.rahul.net by hustle.rahul.net with SMTP id AA03950 (5.67a8/IDA-1.5 for ); Sat, 23 Apr 1994 19:31:58 -0700 Received: by bolero.rahul.net id AA20574 (5.67a8/IDA-1.5 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM); Sat, 23 Apr 1994 19:31:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199404240231.AA20574@bolero.rahul.net> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth In-Reply-To: <199404231659.MAA18164@intercon.com> Date: Sat, 23 Apr 94 19:31:57 -0700 From: Michelle Dick Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) wrote: > I must say that I disagree with the plan to feed mailing lists into > newsgroups. For a great many of the mailing lists out there, I think > that if the list maintainters /wanted/ a newsgroup, they would have > started one already. Most of the lists I know /like/ having some > control over the readers of their lists that is not given by a > newsgroup. There's nothing wrong with newsgroup option, because it remains just that, an option. If AOL or other service offers it that way, they still need an internet email feed to provide the list. List owners can easily refuse to send the list to such an address-feed. I allow a few local exploders on my list (which currently has over 1700 addresses, more readers because some folks share and because of the local exploders). All exploders are on perpetual probation on my list. If I get postings in blatent and unrepentent violation of the guidelines of my list from a site with an exploder, I nix the exploder. Have had no major problems yet (then again, none of the exploding sites are as large as AOL). Not sure if I would send agree to send my list to an AOL exploder or not. I like the fact that the mailing list is somewhat hard to read (and to post to! -- I do not set the reply-to address to the posting address), it limits membership to those clearly interested in the topic (in my case, very lowfat vegetarianism). IMO, the biggest danger of an easy-to-use interface to email lists is that it makes it too easy to post to it (with 1700+ members, I like to discourage non-substantive posting). I might consider allowing an AOL exploder if posting to my list still had to be done via regular internet email, otherwise I'd be very very hesitant. BTW, I have about 40 AOL members currently on my list. I find them to generally be good contributors and good net citizens for the most part. I do have perpetual problems with misuse of the posting address for add/drop requests, but I do not find that AOL generates proportionately more of those problems than other internet sites. -- Michelle Dick Owner, FATFREE Vegetarian Mailing List artemis@rahul.net From list-managers-owner Sun Apr 24 11:00:13 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA15793; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 11:00:13 GMT Received: from post.demon.co.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA15772; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 04:00:00 -0700 Received: from stonewall.demon.co.uk by post.demon.co.uk id aa11732; 24 Apr 94 11:57 GMT-60:00 From: Nigel Whitfield Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 11:31:06 BST In-Reply-To: List-Managers-Digest-Owner@greatcircle.com's message 'List Managers Digest V3 #71' of Sat 23 Apr Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List Managers Digest V3 #71 Message-ID: <9404241131.aa01439@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: Ben.Goren@asu.edu > Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth > > A suggestion some of you might wish to consider: pick a dozen or so > regulars you've got now, people whom you trust, and make them all list > editors . (With Eric Thomas' LISTSERV, mail sent to the list goes to > editors, if specified, and only an editor or an owner can actually post. I > suspect other programs have similar facilities.) Then, if somebody wants to > post, it first gets filtered through the regulars. If any one of them > thinks it's worth passing on to the list, it goes through. If the editors > wish, they can come to some sort of consensus to add new people to their > ranks. At the moment, the list I run (uk-motss) supports a little used 'Distribution:' header. At the moment it's used for the women's sub-list and for priority messages, which override the digest system. I suppose an extension of the suggestion above would be to use Keywords or Distribution headers, and have the list editors classify each incoming message, so that it's only sent to people who have expressed an interest in those subjects. By allowing messages with valid Keywords headers through automatically, you could retain some of the immediacy; the delays on messsages that weren't classified by the sender should encourage them to get into the habit. Nigel. -- [Nigel Whitfield nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk] [For details on the uk-motss mailing list mail uk-motss-request@pyra.co.uk] [***** All demon.co.uk sites are independently run internet hosts *****] From list-managers-owner Sun Apr 24 11:00:23 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA15804; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 11:00:23 GMT Received: from post.demon.co.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA15794; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 04:00:13 -0700 Received: from stonewall.demon.co.uk by post.demon.co.uk id ab11732; 24 Apr 94 11:57 GMT-60:00 From: Nigel Whitfield Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 11:37:44 BST In-Reply-To: List-Managers-Digest-Owner@greatcircle.com's message 'List Managers Digest V3 #71' of Sat 23 Apr Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List Managers Digest V3 #71 Message-ID: <9404241137.aa01454@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: sdpage@andersen.co.uk (Stephen Page) > Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 14:13:04 GMT > Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth > > I have been wondering whether we should try to encourage some of the large > hub owners, eg aol.com, pan.com, etc to manage their own redistributions. > We would just mail to incoming-listname@aol.com (etc) and the mapping > to hundreds of interested people would be handled automagically at the > gateway. That works fine in some circumstances, but there are lists (again, uk-motss is one such) where you might want to have tighter control over redistribution and membership. For instance, everyone who joins uk-motss will receive both welcome message and posting guidelines. The best way to make sure that happens is with a central address. Our current solution is to run extra copies of the list software at two sites (largely to cope with anomalies in European network topology). These will only accept incoming messages from the main list processor, and updating is handled automatically by mailing a pgp encoded subscriber list to another script on the remote host. So, in effect, we have the benefit of remote expansions, but with no loss of central control, and nothing needed on the remote system other than two aliases and a touch of disk space. To me, that's a much more reasonable solution for a private list than simply giving over control of a section to a third party. Nigel. -- [Nigel Whitfield nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk] [For details on the uk-motss mailing list mail uk-motss-request@pyra.co.uk] [***** All demon.co.uk sites are independently run internet hosts *****] From list-managers-owner Sun Apr 24 11:00:18 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA16956; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 17:50:27 GMT Received: from news.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA16949; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 10:50:17 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by news.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.1) id AA10796; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 13:50:26 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA24112; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 13:50:24 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 13:50:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth To: James Cook Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > Interesting. I run some lists too. Have had some people quit due to > volume, but most seem to gret their teeth and stay on if they're > interested. I can't help but wonder what the ceiling is on size. You > know, 1000, 3000? I also wonder how folks keep track of the message > threads, and whether that changes as list size grows. Any thoughts? I haven't had mine go over 500 at any point yet. I think a lot has to do with the list purpose. Some can tolerate larger membership if they are primarily 'informational.' But I have one that is informational and also opinion/discussion. A membership of 3000 wouldn't hack it for that one. > This is very interesting too. I wonder if you're associated with the > woman-started group that spun off of the Well? I read some articles about > a women-only group, and wonder if that's your org.? 'Women' is woman-centered, not women-only. This one takes a lot of care and tending to keep the appropriate atmosphere with such a large and diverse membership. This one is fantastic because of the amount of learning that has been gained in the exchanges. It's not associated with anything - this one provides support, service recommendations, info for good it does, no association necessary. > How does one "advertise" in a gopher service? I understand print media > and word of mouth. But, where do you "park" an add on a gopher? > Actually I haven't been doing the gopher listing. Someone who is a list member, or is at least familiar with the list, has put the address on their women's interests gopher site. Maybe advertising isn't the right word here, but it's just another way that the word gets spread when info on the list gets posted in some reference source. I also had one person tell me they found the list through some listing in a library, another said it was included in a print-out of 'women's resources' at a conference. -Sharon From list-managers-owner Sun Apr 24 20:11:49 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA17424; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 20:11:49 GMT Received: from dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA17185; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 11:53:11 -0700 Received: from DialupEudora (ts1.noc.drexel.edu [129.25.12.13]) by dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id OAA21671 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 14:52:51 -0400 Message-Id: <199404241852.OAA21671@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 14:53:36 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: snyderra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder) Subject: Re: AOL impresses me Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 6:13 PM 4/23/94 -0400, Ken Dykes - Immoderator wrote: >and i reply with my standard form letter stating your request did not >meet all my extra requirements for those wishing to subscribe via AOL. >and i referred you specificially to listmaster@aol.com for more information. Why exactly do you have "extra requirements" from those subscribing from AOL? OK, you seemed to be pissed at AOL management. That's no reason to take it out on the users of the system. I don't see a major difference between aol.com, drexel.edu, or foo.org. It seems to me that it takes about the same amount of effort to mail the person a "Go the hell away and talk to listmaster" as it does to send a "Here are the extra requirements" form message. Bob -- Bob Snyder N2KGO MIME, RIPEM mail accepted snyderra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu finger for RIPEM public key When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl. From list-managers-owner Sun Apr 24 21:11:05 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA17607; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 21:11:05 GMT Received: from Thinkage.On.CA by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA17599; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 14:10:50 -0700 Received: from localhost (kgdykes@localhost) by thinkage.thinkage.on.ca (8.6.4/Thinkage940206) id RAA05151 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 17:11:00 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 17:11:00 -0400 From: Ken Dykes Message-Id: <199404242111.RAA05151@Thinkage.On.CA> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL impresses me Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 14:53:36 -0400 >From: snyderra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder) >Subject: Re: AOL impresses me > >>and i reply with my standard form letter stating your request did not >>meet all my extra requirements for those wishing to subscribe via AOL. >Why exactly do you have "extra requirements" from those subscribing from >AOL? OK, you seemed to be pissed at AOL management. That's no reason to they are required to quote a cute phrase (to show they actually have READ the instructions) and they are required to include with their request to join a copy of the AOL database entry for my list (because i do not expect AOL management to be to keep list managers truly in touch with what the entry says. there seems to be a tendency to "describe the entry" rather than showing the verbatim entry) other requirements, recently included with Stephanies list of lists too, but the original AOL entry did not have include: + sending a real human name, + sending a contact evening (GMT-5) phone number i havent yet phoned anyone, but the requirement seems to scare off the feeble hearted -- which is very fine with me. >take it out on the users of the system. I don't see a major difference >between aol.com, drexel.edu, or foo.org. why should the E-world be sweeter than the real world. especially since the real world seems damned intent upon thrusting itself upon us. clueless freshmen tend to join, and quit a little while later when they realize the list isnt what they expected. perhaps the joins & quits are phrased strangely, but since i do manual admin processing anyway, this is no problem. join & quit operations are a "cheap operation" and dont bother me (i really dont know why others have complained about the high frequency of join/quits) however, AOL users have introduced a new, AND consistent, wrinkle. they ask direct questions of harley-request, requiring direct time-comsumed answers in return. usually the questions have nothing to do with what the list is for. ("Send me everything you have on H-D 1997 model Foo" "I just did this to my bike, is it a good idea") or just general bbs style chit-chat to what they perceive no differently than the friendly local sysop. i dont have time for chit-chat, yet i don't really have the gumption to just ignore their mail completely. also, when i'm on business trips, a non-harley coworker may be doing the joins/quits. how are supposed to handle these turkeys? we are talking about mail to -request, and they are NOT EVEN MEMBERS YET. .edu/.com newbies just have not done this to me in the several years before. >It seems to me that it takes about the same amount of effort to mail the >person a "Go the hell away and talk to listmaster" as it does to send a >"Here are the extra requirements" form message. a little effort spent now will save a hell of a lot of effort later. imho. it's called "investment". i *do* have AOL members on my list, in fact some of the best contributers. however, i *will* use whatever force necessary to keep my overall admin-grief to a minimum -- even if it means shutting out a whole class of users. (after all, the brave new 3000 user list of the future isnt going to miss another 500-1000 of them is it???) in truth my list is about 530 members. my REAL problem with AOL is not the users, but the managements inability to communicate effectively with list managers. they seem quick to talk when "fire fighting", but never produce real and useful information voluntarily. when i sent my "form/update" to them in late march, i never received an ACK, or a statement that there were any problems incorporating it. if they didn't receive my late march mail, why do i still get requests to join when they supposedly removed Harleys from their database -- as THEY volunteered to do?? and, if they didnt receive the form/info from me, why have they not had the curiosity to ask me something when their own users started to ask listmaster direct questions about the Harley list? perhaps there are innocent answers to all this, but they sure arent obvious or forthcoming. communication seems to only be "extracted" from AOL. ----my current form letter follows--- From: harley-request Subject: rejected request to join the Harley Mailing List To: AOL-subscriber Your request to receive the Harley Mailing List did not fulfill all my extra requirements for those receiving mail at America OnLine. Please ask your local LISTMASTER (listmaster@aol.com) to review with you what is required to join the Harley Mailing List. These requirements were sent to the listmaster on Saturday March 26th at 6pm. Since they have not mentioned to me having any problem incorporating the requirments into the AOL mailing list database I can only presume they have done so. If you are able to receive Email at any other electronic address such as a college, corporation or other service-provider like Genie, Portal, Delphi, MCImail, Panix, Compuserve or Prodigy I will be glad to provide you with service at any of those sites; without the above mentioned requirements. - Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] harley-request@thinkage.on.ca thinkage!harley-request kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca postmaster@thinkage.com From list-managers-owner Sun Apr 24 23:04:54 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA18005; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 23:04:54 GMT Received: from apple.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA17999; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 16:04:48 -0700 Received: by apple.com (5.61/8-Oct-1993-eef) id AA14233; Sun, 24 Apr 94 16:04:46 -0700 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 24 Apr 94 16:04:46 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Message-Id: <9404242304.AA14233@apple.com> To: kgdykes@Thinkage.On.CA, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL impresses me Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk funny. I've yet to have a problem with AOL or its users. Of course, I'm not running off picking fights with them, either. I wonder if list managers get the kind of activity they look for? chuq (rhetorical question: are we running lists to provide a service? or because it's good for the ego to be a list manager?) From list-managers-owner Sun Apr 24 23:29:38 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA18129; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 23:29:38 GMT Received: from news.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA18123; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 16:29:31 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by news.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.1) id AA04020; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 19:30:00 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA11925; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 19:25:30 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 19:25:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: list membership security To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Majordomo will limit access to members addresses to members only, however - is there a way to hide addresses from list members as well? Concern I'm hearing about is that someone could get signed on, do 'who' and then split with the info. Know of any other list servers that will do this? I'm getting this questions from an academic institution. Thanks. -Sharon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sharon Shea P.O. Box 79226 Email: sshea@world.std.com Waverley, MA 02179 or sshea@mit.edu Phone: 508-429-9962 Fax: 617-489-3377 From list-managers-owner Sun Apr 24 23:32:25 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA18169; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 23:32:25 GMT Received: from Thinkage.On.CA by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA18163; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 16:32:14 -0700 Received: from localhost (kgdykes@localhost) by thinkage.thinkage.on.ca (8.6.4/Thinkage940206) id TAA10046 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 19:32:24 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 19:32:24 -0400 From: Ken Dykes Message-Id: <199404242332.TAA10046@Thinkage.On.CA> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: selfish motivations, was: Re: AOL impresses me Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Date: Sun, 24 Apr 94 16:04:46 -0700 >From: Chuq Von Rospach >Subject: Re: AOL impresses me >I wonder if list managers get the kind of activity they look for? i suspect those who run "wide open, no rules" lists have few problems. those who run tighter ships will bump into more things. since i don't edit/moderate the actual messages (automated digest), i demand a certain level of reading-for-content and general neural activity from list members upfront. (i do in a blue moon moderate "after the fact" and terminate a thread by fiat.) >(rhetorical question: are we running lists to provide a service? or because >it's good for the ego to be a list manager?) c) forced into it because of the inadequacies of netnews i started the list because *i* wasn't being served by netnews at the time (and still not particularly served by the tooth-and-nailed voted rec.motorcycles.harley) not ego in the sense that "look ma! i have my own empire", but rather the selfish "i want a service, i guess i have to create that service" which, btw, is often what many usenet flamers tell folks to go and do. they ego-payback amortized over hours spent on servicing the list, the list archives, keyword database, and and Thinkage mail service impact is low enough to consider declaring ego insolvency. the information-payback for making my machinery and riding pleasure better is what keeps me going. oh, you said rhetorical... :-) - Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca postmaster@thinkage.com harley-request@thinkage.on.ca thinkage!kgdykes From list-managers-owner Sun Apr 24 23:51:48 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA18234; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 23:51:48 GMT Received: from apple.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA18228; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 16:51:29 -0700 Received: by apple.com (5.61/8-Oct-1993-eef) id AA17728; Sun, 24 Apr 94 16:51:37 -0700 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 24 Apr 94 16:51:37 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Message-Id: <9404242351.AA17728@apple.com> To: kgdykes@Thinkage.On.CA, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: selfish motivations, was: Re: AOL impresses me Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >i suspect those who run "wide open, no rules" lists have few problems. >those who run tighter ships will bump into more things. My lists, by the way, are pretty tight, and actively coerced. I kicked someone off of one Friday, in fact (never, ever say "bite me" to a List Mom), although that's the first time in a LONG time that's happened. >since i don't edit/moderate the actual messages (automated digest), Neither do I. I simply work in the backgroudn 9as much as possible) getting unwelcome threads to go private or die out. (which occasionally gets someone to say "bite me", but he didn't get a vote). There's a specific charter and the like, fairly specific, and closely policed. >c) forced into it because of the inadequacies of netnews Good point, but that's a side reason. What about those other thousands in teh same position that didn't start it up? It might be a catalyst, but not a motivator. >oh, you said rhetorical... :-) But it's fun to think about. Especially by List Mom's that seem to have continuing problems with the list. Sometimes, if you look deep enough, you find the conflict isn't coming from external sources. And sometimes it is. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 00:06:59 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id AAA18287; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 00:06:59 GMT Received: from mordor.cs.du.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA18281; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 17:05:32 -0700 Received: from nyx10.cs.du.edu by mordor.cs.du.edu with SMTP id AA22610 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Sun, 24 Apr 1994 18:02:02 -0600 Received: by nyx10.cs.du.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16065; Sun, 24 Apr 94 18:03:13 MDT From: rnovak@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Robert Novak) Message-Id: <9404250003.AA16065@nyx10.cs.du.edu> X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University of Denver. The University has neither control over nor responsibility for the opinions or correct identity of users. Subject: Re: selfish motivations, was: Re: AOL impresses me To: kgdykes@Thinkage.On.CA (Ken Dykes) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 18:03:12 -0600 (MDT) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199404242332.TAA10046@Thinkage.On.CA> from "Ken Dykes" at Apr 24, 94 07:32:24 pm Reply-To: rnovak@nyx.cs.du.edu X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4221 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "Ken Dykes" says something like: > > >From: Chuq Von Rospach > > >I wonder if list managers get the kind of activity they look for? > > i suspect those who run "wide open, no rules" lists have few problems. > those who run tighter ships will bump into more things. If the list manager just sits around off the list and lets it run, clockmaker style, s/he (or s/h/it for the PC-inclined) will have no direct problems. However, if you want to keep the list worth reading, and the list membership generally doesn't follow netiquette to keep the list worth reading, problems will show up. > since i don't edit/moderate the actual messages (automated digest), i demand > a certain level of reading-for-content and general neural activity from > list members upfront. > (i do in a blue moon moderate "after the fact" and terminate a thread by fiat.) I find this necessary very rarely, but unfortunately people tend to lash out at perceived "censorship" with phrases that translate to "who gives you the right to tell me I have to follow list guidelines and netiquette? I have the right to flame anybody and everybody on your 100+ member list anytime I want using the list without any accountability." Yes, I have one of those smaller large lists... hoping to never break 500 :-) > >(rhetorical question: are we running lists to provide a service? or because > >it's good for the ego to be a list manager?) > > c) forced into it because of the inadequacies of netnews d) bits of each. :-) At least one of my lists, maybe two, are there to provide a semi-sheltered resource for discussions that aren't too popular on the more widely-defined newsgroups. Others were taken over to provide a service when the original managers became unable to actively manage or support them. > not ego in the sense that "look ma! i have my own empire", but rather the > selfish "i want a service, i guess i have to create that service" I have several lists like this. They're usually low traffic, low time requirements to manage, but the people who participate usually appreciate them. > they ego-payback amortized over hours spent on servicing the list, the > list archives, keyword database, and and Thinkage mail service impact is > low enough to consider declaring ego insolvency. Is there a Chapter 11 for ego bankruptcy? :-) On the subject of AOL and special requirements, I agree with the poster who suggested just passing along the extra requirements and letting them fulfill the requirements via your document rather than via the AOL online database. I don't claim to know what's best for you, and if this system works for you go along with it, but I hate to hold users accountable for administrative shortcomings. If you tell them "read this and follow the instructions to get added" and they read it and follow the instructions, they've done their share. I've had reasonably parallel experiences with AOL and non-AOL users as far as good users, bad users, list abuse, appropriate list use, etc... I think that if AOL users had been added at a much slower rate, we wouldn't have noticed. However, a lot got dumped onto the net at once, so the influx of clueless newbies happened to be in a short period of time. Same with the influx of clueful contributors to the net.culture. AOL remains one of the friendlier net access points for people who don't have access to a shell account, and some people around the world lose their company or school accounts every year and look for some way to access the net from B.F. Egypt ... Friendly in terms of interface, cost, and reachability. Let's remember that not every AOLer is a clueless infidel who uses 0 instead of O in every word... some might be pretty significant computer users and net participants who just had to find another on-ramp. Enough babbling... gotta go get caffeine. :-) Robert -- Robert Novak (rnovak@nyx.cs.du.edu) . Manager: tiffany, perfect-beat, slade, "You get elaborate with your lies, . tiger, galaxy, gpdg, galaxy variants Computer dreams slip through your . GM: galaxy, g/2, galactica, blind eyes / Baby you like to be the king of paradise / So sweet and ruthless." -TD From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 00:07:46 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id AAA18307; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 00:07:46 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA18301; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 17:07:39 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA16233; Sun, 24 Apr 94 20:05:19 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 20:02:06 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Subject: Re: list membership security To: Sharon Shea Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Sharon, > Majordomo will limit access to members addresses to members only, however - > is there a way to hide addresses from list members as well? > Concern I'm hearing about is that someone could get signed on, do 'who' > and then split with the info. Yes, I run several lists where members feel the need to remain private and had the same concerns about majordomo. The easiest solution I've found is simply patch the majordomo perl file so "who" doesn't work any more. Change the keyword "who" to "green" or "horse" or some other random word. Then update the help file to indicate that 'who' has been disabled on your list server. You and your list managers still have the functionality of a who command, but the users at large don't -- and they probably didn't need it anyway. David. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 00:13:39 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id AAA18349; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 00:13:39 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA18343; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 17:13:32 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA16275; Sun, 24 Apr 94 20:11:11 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 20:06:09 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Subject: Re: AOL impresses me To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9404242304.AA14233@apple.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 24 Apr 1994, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > funny. I've yet to have a problem with AOL or its users. Of course, I'm > not running off picking fights with them, either. That's OK. The law of averages will catch up with you too. > I wonder if list managers get the kind of activity they look for? Possible, but based on the sheer numbers of list managers who have trouble with AOL users it would seem that there is something of substance. > (rhetorical question: are we running lists to provide a service? or because > it's good for the ego to be a list manager?) Interesting question... I'm sure it varies from manager to manager, and in almost all cases its some mixture of both. David. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 00:17:49 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id AAA18395; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 00:17:49 GMT Received: from news.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA18389; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 17:17:43 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by news.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.1) id AA07271; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 20:18:12 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA24102; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 20:13:42 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 20:13:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: list membership security To: David Casti Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > Yes, I run several lists where members feel the need to remain private > and had the same concerns about majordomo. The easiest solution I've > found is simply patch the majordomo perl file so "who" doesn't work any > more. Change the keyword "who" to "green" or "horse" or some other > random word. Then update the help file to indicate that 'who' has been > disabled on your list server. > > You and your list managers still have the functionality of a who command, > but the users at large don't -- and they probably didn't need it anyway. > > David. I take it that this will disable 'who' universally for all the lists on that server. Is there a way to do it for some of the lists, but not all of the lists? -Sharon From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 00:52:17 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id AAA18623; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 00:52:17 GMT Received: from mail.netcom.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA18617; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 17:52:09 -0700 Received: from localhost by mail.netcom.com (8.6.4/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id RAA20721; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 17:53:28 -0700 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 17:53:27 -0700 (PDT) From: James Cook Subject: Re: list membership security To: David Casti cc: Sharon Shea , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 24 Apr 1994, David Casti wrote: > Hi Sharon, > > > Majordomo will limit access to members addresses to members only, however - > > is there a way to hide addresses from list members as well? > > Concern I'm hearing about is that someone could get signed on, do 'who' > > and then split with the info. > > Yes, I run several lists where members feel the need to remain private > and had the same concerns about majordomo. The easiest solution I've > found is simply patch the majordomo perl file so "who" doesn't work any > more. Change the keyword "who" to "green" or "horse" or some other > random word. Then update the help file to indicate that 'who' has been > disabled on your list server. > > You and your list managers still have the functionality of a who command, > but the users at large don't -- and they probably didn't need it anyway. > I have this need too, and think this suggestion sounds brilliant and simple. Trick is I'm not sure ho to do it in mechanical terms. Any chance of spelling it out for a simple mind? Does the modification depend upon cooperation of a sysadmin? I've not received cooperation on this matter from ours. Is it doable from a dial up account? Thanks to all for this particular, important gem...... James From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 01:09:49 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id BAA18765; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 01:09:49 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA18759; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 18:09:41 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA16721; Sun, 24 Apr 94 21:07:17 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 20:58:48 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Reply-To: David Casti Subject: Re: list membership security To: James Cook Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi James, On Sun, 24 Apr 1994, James Cook wrote: > I have this need too, and think this suggestion sounds brilliant and > simple. Wow, that's a pretty high compliment. Thanks. I have yet to hear an argument for allowing users to 'who' a mailing list. Sysadmins and list admins, yes; users, no. > Trick is I'm not sure ho to do it in mechanical terms. Any chance > of spelling it out for a simple mind? I believe I'm using majordomo version 1.51, and in the "majordomo" perl executable -- NOT majordomo.pl -- wander on down to line 125: line 125: elsif ($cmd eq "who") { &do_who(@parts); } Just change the value of "who" to anything you want. No other steps are required to effect this change. If you're a decent human being, you should also update "sub do_help" (begins on line 632) to reflect that 'who' is not available. > Does the modification depend upon cooperation of a sysadmin? It requires write access to the majordomo executable. This may or may not be your sysadmin. > I've not received cooperation on this matter from ours. Have you determined why? I've met very few sysadmins who are gratuitously obstinate. Most of the time they are trying to save work, but you can't get much simpler than this solution. David. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 01:19:47 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id BAA18840; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 01:19:47 GMT Received: from mail.netcom.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA18834; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 18:19:40 -0700 Received: from localhost by mail.netcom.com (8.6.4/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id SAA24017; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 18:21:17 -0700 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 18:21:16 -0700 (PDT) From: James Cook Subject: Re: list membership security To: David Casti cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 24 Apr 1994, David Casti wrote: > > Does the modification depend upon cooperation of a sysadmin? > > It requires write access to the majordomo executable. This may or may > not be your sysadmin. > Ah ......I may out of luck. Also, As Sharon points out, this may disable the who command for every list manager at a site, correct? Some list managers w/ Majordomo may desire to leave "who" activated. > > I've not received cooperation on this matter from ours. > > Have you determined why? I've met very few sysadmins who are gratuitously > obstinate. Most of the time they are trying to save work, but you can't > get much simpler than this solution. > I wish I new. No response to my five requests over several months. They just indicate that they're busy. I've explained that there are security, privacy, and proprietary reasons of substance, but they just don't get it handled. On another note, I've heard that even disabling "who" will not prevent certain other methods of even non list members from obtaining alist of users. Something about sendmail manipulation...... James From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 01:28:26 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id BAA18892; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 01:28:26 GMT Received: from gordius.gordian.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA18886; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 18:28:18 -0700 Received: from odetics.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by gordius.gordian.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) with UUCP id SAA23457 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 18:28:16 -0700 Received: from mordred.odetics.com by odetics.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA11633; Sun, 24 Apr 94 18:14:45 PDT Received: by mordred.odetics.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA15751; Sun, 24 Apr 94 18:14:45 PDT Date: Sun, 24 Apr 94 18:14:45 PDT From: ric@odetics.com (Ric Belding) Message-Id: <9404250114.AA15751@mordred.odetics.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: AOL Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I also have yet to have any problems with users on AOL. What's all the hub-bub? Ric _____________________________ _____ | \ \ R \__ _____ | Ric Belding \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | ric@odetics.com / ( /_/ ..................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' _/____/ From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 03:16:41 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id DAA19204; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 03:16:41 GMT Received: from tonto.scs.unr.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA19064; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 19:32:19 -0700 Received: from shadow.scs.unr.edu by tonto.scs.unr.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA20447; Sun, 24 Apr 94 19:32:47 PDT Received: by shadow.scs.unr.edu (5.65/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA12934; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 19:32:46 -0700 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 19:32:46 -0700 From: willis@scs.unr.edu (Glee Willis) Message-Id: <9404250232.AA12934@shadow.scs.unr.edu> To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: aausers' need for majordomo "who" command Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 24 Apr 1994 David Casti said: > You and your list managers still have the functionality of a who command, > but the users at large don't -- and they probably didn't need it anyway. What about when those of us Joe Users (who want to unsubscribe from a majordomo list) need to check to see what our FQDN was when we subscribed to it? (Our FQDNs here change about every six months but the nameservers are set to retain our old FQDNs for long afterwards.) If you expect list subscribers to act responsibly, you need to equip them with the tools to do so. The 'who' command is just such a tool. Glee From list-managers-owner Sun Apr 24 20:30:13 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id DAA19244; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 03:19:44 GMT Received: from albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA19238; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 20:19:28 -0700 From: tower@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu by albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Sun, 24 Apr 94 23:19:34 -0400 Received: by nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu (15.11/4.0) id ; Sun, 24 Apr 94 23:19:31 edt Date: Sun, 24 Apr 94 23:19:31 edt Message-Id: <9404250319.AA23401@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: pmdatropos@aol.com Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <9404230750.tn74359@aol.com> "pmdatropos@aol.com" Reply-To: tower@prep.ai.mit.edu Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation, 675 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139-3309, USA +1-617-876-3296 Home: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA 02143, USA +1-617-623-7739 Subject: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk From: pmdatropos@aol.com X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Date: Sat, 23 Apr 94 07:50:53 EDT Precedence: bulk >From sdpage@andersen.co.uk We (America Online) are working on a mechanism to provide mailing lists over our USENET news reader. Once testing is complete, we will be contacting list owners to work with them to provide their lists to our users in thi fashion. We believe that the provision of a single, stable point-of-presence will prove a benefit to the majority of mailing lists to which our members currently subscribe via e-mail. It will also have the benefit of decreasing our e-mail traffic somewhat, which last I heard was approximately 6,000,000 messages a month. Automatically doing this for any off-site mailing list is not appropriate. You could ruin many lists overnight, by swamping them with a lot of newcomers and idly curious. The previous suggestion of having a single re-distribution address at AOL would reduce the TCP/IP overhead. Who is on this re-distribution address should be controlled by the list's owner, NOT by AOL, unless there is prior agreement otherwise. It's been common practice on all the gateways I know, to at least ask the maintainers of a mailing list if they have any objections to having their list gated to and from a newsgroup (be it local or net wide), with an offer to answer questions about USENET and possible effects of the gateway, number of accounts at the site or across USENET, etc. And only establish the gateway after the list owner agrees. Many list owners have discussed the matter with their lists. Mailing lists and newsgroups are very different types of forums. The Internet needs both. please, Please, PLEASE do NOT do what you suggest, except on a case-by-case basis with the agreement of the list owner and his list. thanx -len Coordinator, gnUSENET and Gnu Project Mailing Lists From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 03:31:11 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id DAA19325; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 03:31:11 GMT Received: from sunshine.eushc.org by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA19319; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 20:31:02 -0700 Received: from knex.UUCP (root@localhost) by sunshine.eushc.org (8.6.8.1/EUSHC) with UUCP id XAA16512; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 23:31:29 -0400 Received: by mind.org (8.6.8.1/MIND.ORG) with UUCP id WAA06526; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 22:54:58 -0400 Received: by knex.mind.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Sun, 24 Apr 94 22:48:51 EST for list-managers@greatcircle.COM To: list-managers@greatcircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL From: Gess Shankar Reply-To: gess@knex.mind.org (Gess Shankar) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Apr 94 22:48:29 EDT In-Reply-To: <9404250114.AA15751@mordred.odetics.com> Organization: |<><>| Knowledge Exchange, GA, USA |<><>| Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ric@odetics.com (Ric Belding) writes: > I also have yet to have any problems with users on AOL. > > What's all the hub-bub? > The major problem with AOL users in some of my lists appears to be their inability to figure out the correct address to send commands and list mail. Any amount of help text sent with subscription acknowlegement and periodic mailings has not fixed this problem. Even though distributed mail has the Reply-To: set to the list address, the mailer they use seems to want to send the reply mail to the From_ or Sender: address. They also send the commands to the same address which is the mailer-daemon and not the server alias. This continues to happen despite frequent administrivia postings to the list, explaining the headers and the various addresses therein. When they find out the List addresses, guess where they send the sub/unsub commands to..? When combined with the fact that AOLers seem to want to get on and off lists for the heck of it, this becomes a pain to administer. (Especially nasty are those who subscribe and then send mail to list-owner, list etc. screaming ... "Stop sending this garbage, I am not interested") Other than that, no problem with AOL users. GeSS -- Gess Shankar |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.mind.ORG |<><>| Knowledge Exchange|<><>|{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!uumind!knex!gess |<><>| From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 04:08:41 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA19412; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 04:08:41 GMT Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA19406; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 21:08:33 -0700 Received: from localhost (pjg@localhost) by urth (8.6.8/8.6.4) with SMTP id AAA08411; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 00:08:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199404250408.AAA08411@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: urth.acsu.buffalo.edu: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: James Cook cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list membership security In-reply-to: A message of "Sun, 24 Apr 1994 18:21:16 PDT." MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 00:08:23 -0400 From: Paul Graham Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk the issue of modifying major-domo is more appropriate for the majordomo list. however the privacy aspects of sendmail are likely a list-managers concern so: if you're using sendmail you need, for security reasons, to be running the current version (8.6.9 as of today) which supports limits on the vrfy and expn commands. of course sendmail will not normally track down a majordomo list. regarding your ``non-responsive'' system administrators: if we can assume that you're a netcom customer and they are ``selling'' the ability to run mailing lists then you must depend upon them to make changes to system facilities like majordomo and sendmail. if you find this awkward you can use something like procmail which can run entirely in your account or you can switch to a more responsive vendor (if any exist). -------- You write: I wish I new. No response to my five requests over several months. They just indicate that they're busy. I've explained that there are security, privacy, and proprietary reasons of substance, but they just don't get it handled. On another note, I've heard that even disabling "who" will not prevent certain other methods of even non list members from obtaining alist of users. Something about sendmail manipulation...... ------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 04:12:15 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA19438; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 04:12:15 GMT Received: from emory.mathcs.emory.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA19432; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 21:12:09 -0700 Received: from toolz.UUCP by emory.mathcs.emory.edu (5.65/Emory_mathcs.3.4.21) via UUCP id AA06763 ; Mon, 25 Apr 94 00:12:37 -0400 Received: by toolz (5.65/1.35) id AA05973; Sun, 24 Apr 94 22:59:20 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 94 22:59:20 -0400 From: todd%toolz.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu (Todd Merriman) Message-Id: <9404250259.AA05973@toolz> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list membership security Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have only been asked for my list by those who wish to use it for commercial gain. I, therefore, give the list to no-one. | Todd Merriman - Software Toolz, Inc. +1 404 889 8264 / Maintainer of the | 8030 Pooles Mill Dr., Ball Ground, GA 30107 / Software Entrepreneur's | todd@toolz.atl.ga.us / Mailing List In all labor there is profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 05:25:24 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA19679; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 05:25:24 GMT Received: from intercon.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA19673; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 22:25:17 -0700 Received: from localhost by intercon.com (Sendmail 8.6.5/940209.RS) id BAA06926; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 01:25:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 01:25:09 -0400 From: jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) Message-Id: <199404250525.BAA06926@intercon.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Here's a question for you all... Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk So. We've all gotten really sick and tired of misdirected sub and unsub requests. The question is, do all of you who run automated list maintainence SW have the -request set correctly so that, at the VERY least, the user who uses that address gets a note saying that this is an automated system and to do the following...? I really hope so... JB From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 06:20:42 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id GAA19935; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 06:20:42 GMT Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA19928; Sun, 24 Apr 1994 23:20:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199404250620.XAA19928@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Here's a question for you all... In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 25 Apr 1994 01:25:09 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 23:20:33 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) writes: # So. # We've all gotten really sick and tired of misdirected sub and unsub # requests. # The question is, do all of you who run automated list maintainence SW # have the -request set correctly so that, at the VERY least, # the user who uses that address gets a note saying that this is an # automated system and to do the following...? # I really hope so... # JB I strongly agree with this sentiment (that you should support the "-request" convention, regardless of what else you do). This is a key part of the standard Majordomo setup. If folks follow the examples given for setting up lists, they'll have a "-request" address for each list that sends back instructions on how to use Majordomo with specific examples customized for the list in question. -Brent -- Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | Call or email for info about Brent@GreatCircle.COM | 1057 West Dana Street | upcoming Internet Security +1 415 962 0841 | Mountain View, CA 94041 | Firewalls Tutorial dates From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 07:40:38 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA20558; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 07:40:38 GMT Received: from hustle.rahul.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id AAA20552; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 00:40:30 -0700 Received: from bolero.rahul.net by hustle.rahul.net with SMTP id AA21459 (5.67a8/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 25 Apr 1994 00:40:25 -0700 Received: by bolero.rahul.net id AA06519 (5.67a8/IDA-1.5 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM); Mon, 25 Apr 1994 00:40:24 -0700 Message-Id: <199404250740.AA06519@bolero.rahul.net> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Here's a question for you all... In-Reply-To: <199404250525.BAA06926@intercon.com> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 00:40:24 -0700 From: Michelle Dick Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) wrote: > So. > We've all gotten really sick and tired of misdirected sub and unsub > requests. > The question is, do all of you who run automated list maintainence SW > have the -request set correctly so that, at the VERY least, > the user who uses that address gets a note saying that this is an > automated system and to do the following...? > I really hope so... Heh. Reminds me of recent email discussion I had. A *postmaster* at an edu site sent a request to my posting address asking that a user of theirs be removed from the list as they hadn't followed proper email procedures at that site. I, of course, wrote back noting the irony of a *postmaster* failing to use proper email procedures in addressing admin requests to a list and informed them of the standard -request usage. They responded by saying that they didn't consider it a standard at all and couldn't possibly be expected to know every convention of every list on the internet. They did agree that from now on they would try using -request before posting to a list even if they didn't agree with me that it is a standard. Guess that's good enough. -- Michelle Dick Owner, FATFREE Vegetarian Mailing List artemis@rahul.net From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 03:23:42 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA21357; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:34:01 GMT Received: from spectre.uunet.ca by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id CAA21349; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 02:33:52 -0700 Received: from cchtor.ca.cch.com ([192.139.241.2]) by spectre.uunet.ca with SMTP id <32902(3)>; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 05:34:12 -0400 Received: (from larry@localhost) by cchtor.ca.cch.com (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) id FAA18471 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 05:36:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 05:36:54 -0400 From: Larry Chin Message-Id: <199404250936.FAA18471@cchtor.ca.cch.com> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> The explosion of messages is inevitable for mail reflectors; however >> software already exists to filter subscribers and exclude non-members. >> I believe the real problem will lie with straight mail. 1) Does anyone know the names and/or whereabouts of the any of the above software ? 2) Does anyone have any recommendations as to which piece(s) of software are "better" than others for performing the above functions ? Thanks Mon Apr 25 05:35:29 EDT 1994 =========================================================================== Larry Chin {larry@cchtor.ca.cch.com} CCH Canadian Ltd. System Administrator 6 Garamond Court Research and Development North York, Ontario. (416) 441-4001 ext. 349 M3C 1Z5 =========================================================================== "What do you give a man who has everything?" the pretty teenager asked her mother. "Encouragement, dear," she replied. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 10:51:50 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA21610; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:51:50 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id DAA21604; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 03:51:41 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA19582; Mon, 25 Apr 94 06:49:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 06:47:58 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Subject: Re: list membership security To: James Cook Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Ah ......I may out of luck. Also, As Sharon points out, this may disable > the who command for every list manager at a site, correct? Some list > managers w/ Majordomo may desire to leave "who" activated. This change will affect every list managed by that particular copy of majordomo, yes. > On another note, I've heard that even disabling "who" will not prevent > certain other methods of even non list members from obtaining alist of > users. Something about sendmail manipulation...... Sure, but there are also ways to defeat this. Turn off EXPN and VRFY in sendmail, for example. David. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 11:12:50 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA21661; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 11:12:50 GMT Received: from news.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA21655; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 04:12:43 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by news.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.1) id AA14932; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 07:13:12 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA05051; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 07:13:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 07:13:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: Here's a question for you all... To: Brent Chapman Cc: Jailbait , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199404250620.XAA19928@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > # So. > # We've all gotten really sick and tired of misdirected sub and unsub > # requests. > > I strongly agree with this sentiment (that you should support the > "-request" convention, regardless of what else you do). This is a key > part of the standard Majordomo setup. If folks follow the examples > given for setting up lists, they'll have a "-request" address for each > list that sends back instructions on how to use Majordomo with > specific examples customized for the list in question. > > -Brent The great thing about majordomo is that it _does_ pick up the sub & unsub requests and sends them to me rather than the list address. Something of an inconvenence when it sends me a legit message when the 's' words have been used in regard to something else, but it does help enormously not to have these requests going to the list. -Sharon From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 11:50:10 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA21825; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 11:50:10 GMT Received: from de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA21819; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 04:50:04 -0700 Received: (from de5@localhost) by de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV (8.6.9/8.6.9) id HAA02711; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 07:50:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 07:50:17 -0400 From: Dave Sill Message-Id: <199404251150.HAA02711@de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV> To: David Casti Cc: James Cook , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list membership security In-Reply-To: References: Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Sure, but there are also ways to defeat this. Turn off EXPN and VRFY in >sendmail, for example. With sendmail version 8, VRFY is safe. Rather than doing the same thing as EXPN (expanding the alias) it just indicates whether or not the specified address is a valid recipient. You can turn EXPN off in the config file using: Opauthwarnings,noexpn -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) I dream of a televisionland where it will be Martin Marietta Energy Systems as hard for a network to expose us to violence Workstation Support as it is for me to tell someone they have spinach on their teeth. --Paula Poundstone URL http://www.dec.com/pub/DEC/DECinfo/html/dsill.html From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 12:25:31 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA22086; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 12:25:31 GMT Received: from z.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA22079; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 05:25:23 -0700 Received: from localhost (mmorse@localhost) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id IAA07911; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 08:24:55 -0400 Message-Id: <199404251224.IAA07911@z.nsf.gov> From: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 08:24:55 EDT In-Reply-To: David Casti "Re: list membership security" (Apr 24, 8:58pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: David Casti , James Cook Subject: Re: list membership security Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Have you determined why? I've met very few sysadmins who are gratuitously > obstinate. Most of the time they are trying to save work, but you can't > get much simpler than this solution. I have no idea, of course, why the sysadmin is obstinate, but I do have a quibble with your description of the solution as "simple". Good sysadmin's know that *no* site-specific changes are simple. They must be well documented so that when the next version of the software is released it can be re-applied. Particularly with this request, folks would be very grumpy if "who" suddenly started working again. One change is not a big deal, but sysadmins sometimes have to deal with many systems with many upgrades, and site-specific changes are a real problem. --Mike From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 13:26:41 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA22477; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:26:41 GMT Received: from mailgate.prod.aol.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id GAA22469; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 06:26:33 -0700 From: pmdatropos@aol.com Received: by mailgate.prod.aol.net (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA20123; Mon, 25 Apr 94 09:23:48 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Message-Id: <9404250923.tn00703@aol.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 09:23:43 EDT Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Michelle Dick wrote: >jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) wrote: >> I must say that I disagree with the plan to feed mailing lists into >> newsgroups. For a great many of the mailing lists out there, I think >> that if the list maintainters /wanted/ a newsgroup, they would have >> started one already. Most of the lists I know /like/ having some >> control over the readers of their lists that is not given by a >> newsgroup. I'm surprised at the level of dislike evidenced by list owners -- I guess it just goes to show that one should never assume what one sees as a solution will be perceived as such by others. I also get the impression that there is a misunderstanding about our ideas. America Online is not going to simply move lists to our internal news hierarchy without warning, nor are we trying to force list owners to acquiesce. Providing access to a mailing list via our -local distribution- newsgroups would (a) diminish the inbound flow of mail from lists with large numbers of America Online subscribers and/or high traffic; (b) eliminate the problem of users signing on, deciding they don't want the list, then signing off (a large problem on human-administered lists); (c) eliminate the "no such America Online member" messages; and (d) provide our subscribers with a threaded interface to the mailing list traffic. In a sense our plan will be similar to that provided by BITNET sites using the GRAND product to locally distribute mailing lists (and news). Responses to list articles will be transmitted over mail, and (assuming all goes well) will arrive at the list processor appearing as though they came from our subscribers, not the America Online distribution mechanism. Although America Online members will be encouraged to participate in those lists we carry over our internal news reader via that product, they won't be prevented from subscribing to and participating in the mailing lists over e-mail. For myself, I'm looking forward to being able to read the lists I run in this fashion -- it will help me handle the volume of the lists more effectively and will cut down on some of my administrative tasks. >There's nothing wrong with newsgroup option, because it remains just >that, an option. If AOL or other service offers it that way, they >still need an internet email feed to provide the list. List owners >can easily refuse to send the list to such an address-feed. The whole idea is that we will work -with- list owners on this project. If carrying the list over news becomes a problem, then we work on a solution -with- the list owner(s). __ David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com, atropos@aol.net) \/ System Administrator, America Online, Inc. Tel.: +1 703/556-3725 From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 06:40:18 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA22651; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:38:32 GMT Received: from panix.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id GAA22358; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 06:06:36 -0700 Received: by panix.com id AA20769 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for list-managers@greatcircle.com); Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:06:44 -0400 From: Andy Finkenstadt Message-Id: <199404251306.AA20769@panix.com> Subject: Re: AOL impresses me To: disc@vector.casti.com (David Casti) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:06:44 -0400 (EDT) Cc: chuq@apple.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: from "David Casti" at Apr 24, 94 08:06:09 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 755 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Possible, but based on the sheer numbers of list managers who have trouble > with AOL users it would seem that there is something of substance. I have had more problems with *.edu sites than I've ever had with AOL users who want to subscribe to "rec.arts.erotica". It is rare that I will talk about other online services at all, but in this regard I must stand up for AOL users. Those who take the time to learn, and those who seriously want information, they are the members worth their weight in gold. (How much does an electron's worth of gold weigh? :> ) -- andy@genie.geis.com | Andy Finkenstadt, GEnie Sysop, GEnie Postmaster andy@tml.com (soon) | Systems Engineer, TML Information Services, Inc. genie@panix.com | +1 718-793-9099 From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 13:45:37 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA22727; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:45:37 GMT Received: from mailgate.prod.aol.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id GAA22711; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 06:45:24 -0700 From: pmdatropos@aol.com Received: by mailgate.prod.aol.net (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA00853; Mon, 25 Apr 94 09:42:39 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Message-Id: <9404250942.tn01174@aol.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 09:42:38 EDT Subject: Re: AOL impresses me Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ken Dykes writes: >also, when i'm on business trips, a non-harley coworker may be doing >the joins/quits. how are supposed to handle these turkeys? When I get incorrectly-addressed messages on my lists, a simple reply message of "this is the wrong address for discussion articles. Please use instead.", including the original message, works fine. >when i sent my "form/update" to them in late march, i never received >an ACK, or a statement that there were any problems incorporating it. My problems with it were related to your apparent need to take your dislike of America Online out on its members. Generally speaking, when list owners have had problems with our members and I've contacted them, they have either asked me to remove their list from our database or have worked with me to provide better information. >if they didn't receive my late march mail, why do i still get requests to >join when they supposedly removed Harleys from their database -- as THEY >volunteered to do?? That's a good question. Since the entry does not appear in our database, they must be getting hold of it elsewhere. Perhaps you need to make your wishes known in whatever other areas you advertise your list? >and, if they didnt receive the form/info from me, why have they not had >the curiosity to ask me something when their own users started to ask >listmaster direct questions about the Harley list? When I get questions from users, I direct them to the USENET newsgroups which cover motorcyling. I do not believe that your "extra requirements" -exclusively- aimed at America Online members are fair to them, so I made the decision not to replace your old entry with the new, discriminatory one. __ David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com, atropos@aol.net) \/ System Administrator, America Online, Inc. Tel.: +1 703/556-3725 From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 06:50:20 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA22680; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:40:35 GMT Received: from de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id GAA22674; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 06:40:20 -0700 Received: (from de5@localhost) by de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV (8.6.9/8.6.9) id JAA03112; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:40:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:40:49 -0400 From: Dave Sill Message-Id: <199404251340.JAA03112@de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have no problem with people gatewaying my lists to *local* newsgroups, as long as they do it right--give it a local name, make it moderated, set the moderator's address to the list address. I don't even care if they notify me. I've had *no* problems with these gateways in the past. I have the same feelings about local exploders, except they're much more likely to be misconfigured. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) I dream of a televisionland where it will be Martin Marietta Energy Systems as hard for a network to expose us to violence Workstation Support as it is for me to tell someone they have spinach on their teeth. --Paula Poundstone URL http://www.dec.com/pub/DEC/DECinfo/html/dsill.html From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 07:00:23 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA22601; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:36:46 GMT Received: from de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA22000; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 05:11:58 -0700 Received: (from de5@localhost) by de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV (8.6.9/8.6.9) id IAA02868; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 08:12:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 08:12:25 -0400 From: Dave Sill Message-Id: <199404251212.IAA02868@de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV> To: willis@scs.unr.edu (Glee Willis) Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: users' need for majordomo "who" command In-Reply-To: <9404250232.AA12934@shadow.scs.unr.edu> References: <9404250232.AA12934@shadow.scs.unr.edu> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [This really doesn't belong on the list-managers list.] >What about when those of us Joe Users (who want to unsubscribe from a >majordomo list) need to check to see what our FQDN was when we subscribed >to it? (Our FQDNs here change about every six months but the nameservers >are set to retain our old FQDNs for long afterwards.) If you expect >list subscribers to act responsibly, you need to equip them with the >tools to do so. The 'who' command is just such a tool. That's what the "which" command is for. Of course, "which" can be used to extract the entire subscription list a piece at a time. Maybe it should be modified to restrict searches to strings three characters or longer and match only the left side of the "@"--unless an "@" is in the search string. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) I dream of a televisionland where it will be Martin Marietta Energy Systems as hard for a network to expose us to violence Workstation Support as it is for me to tell someone they have spinach on their teeth. --Paula Poundstone URL http://www.dec.com/pub/DEC/DECinfo/html/dsill.html From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 14:04:56 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA22881; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 14:04:56 GMT Received: from z.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA22874; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 07:04:47 -0700 Received: from localhost (mmorse@localhost) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id KAA07977; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:05:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199404251405.KAA07977@z.nsf.gov> From: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:05:13 EDT In-Reply-To: pmdatropos@aol.com "Re: Superhighway Growth" (Apr 25, 9:23am) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: pmdatropos@aol.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Responses > to list articles will be transmitted over mail, and (assuming all goes well) > will arrive at the list processor appearing as though they came from our > subscribers, not the America Online distribution mechanism. The question is who does the response appear to be from? If it appears to be from the AOL user's internet address (e.g. "mmorse@aol.com") then some list manager programs will reject the response, for the reason that "the user is not on the list." (I'm not saying that this is a good way to behave, but it is a fact of life.) If the responses all come from "list@aol.com" (or whatever the address you use to subscribe your internal news reader to the list), then that will be misleading at best, and may cause other problems. Some advice: pay attention to your mail headers and envelope addresses. Such a scheme as you propose has the potential for awesome mail loops. --Mike From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 14:10:18 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA22947; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 14:10:18 GMT Received: from slopoke.mlb.semi.harris.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA22941; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 07:10:09 -0700 Received: from ace.mlb.semi.harris.com by slopoke.mlb.semi.harris.com (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA24513; Mon, 25 Apr 94 10:10:33 EDT Received: from rtfm.UUCP by ace.mlb.semi.harris.com (4.1/SMI-4.1-jmb+uucp) id AA13916; Mon, 25 Apr 94 10:10:32 EDT Received: by rtfm.mlb.fl.us (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA24433; Mon, 25 Apr 94 10:07:47 EDT Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:01:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Grayson Walker Subject: Re: Misdirected sub and unsub requests To: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199404250525.BAA06926@intercon.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > We've all gotten really sick and tired of misdirected sub and unsub > requests. So what's the problem? Are the users too dumb or is the system too dumb? Seems like the users are doing what is logical and self evident to them - there sure are lots of them doing the same thing. Change them or change the system? Bingo! It's time for the systems to change. Instead of cursing the dumb user (just wait until the REAL GROWTH starts), there is time to change the system and solve the problem. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 14:46:34 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA23247; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 14:46:34 GMT Received: from mailgate.prod.aol.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA23241; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 07:46:26 -0700 From: pmdatropos@aol.com Received: by mailgate.prod.aol.net (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA06483; Mon, 25 Apr 94 10:43:36 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Message-Id: <9404251035.tn02606@aol.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 10:35:58 EDT Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Mike Morse (mmorse@nsf.gov) writes: >> Responses >> to list articles will be transmitted over mail, and (assuming all goes well) >> will arrive at the list processor appearing as though they came from our >> subscribers, not the America Online distribution mechanism. >The question is who does the response appear to be from? If it appears >to be from the AOL user's internet address (e.g. "mmorse@aol.com") then >some list manager programs will reject the response, for the reason >that "the user is not on the list." (I'm not saying that this is a >good way to behave, but it is a fact of life.) If the responses all >come from "list@aol.com" (or whatever the address you use to subscribe >your internal news reader to the list), then that will be misleading at >best, and may cause other problems. Some advice: pay attention to >your mail headers and envelope addresses. Such a scheme as you >propose has the potential for awesome mail loops. The idea (right now) is to have something akin to: Sender: aol-list-echoer@aol.com From: aol-user@aol.com (This is much like the way LISTSERV sends out mail). Our initial test lists are run on LISTSERV, and we'll make absolutely certain that the echoing works -correctly- before we approach other list owners. The three lists which I run are configured to provide us with the problems of: (1) Handling lists which only accept mail from 'subscribed' members (2) Handling lists which are edited Once we have LISTSERV handling working, we hope to turn to Majordomo-style list handling. For those list owners who manually process their lists, we'll work with them on an individual basis. Lists-->News won't be some monolithic, over-night change. As I've said before, we'll be working with various list owners to make certain they don't have problems with the procedure. __ David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com, atropos@aol.net) \/ System Administrator, America Online, Inc. Tel.: +1 703/556-3725 From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 14:52:52 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA23283; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 14:52:52 GMT Received: from news.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA23277; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 07:52:44 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by news.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.1) id AA05757; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:53:13 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA03497; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:53:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:53:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth To: pmdatropos@aol.com Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9404250923.tn00703@aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > I also get the impression that there is a misunderstanding about our ideas. > America Online is not going to simply move lists to our internal news > hierarchy without warning, nor are we trying to force list owners to > acquiesce. Providing access to a mailing list via our -local distribution- It would be helpful to get some clarificatin here before keel over from astonishment. Are you implying that there is a concept that lists could be moved without warning. And 'not trying to force'? The choice of words no doubt gives the comments an uneasy feeling you may not intend, but 'force' and 'warning' just seem to give me uneasy feeling. I can't imagine that anyone would touch any darn thing about a list without this being the total wish of the list owner. If anyone posted any of my list messages on a newsgroup without my knowing, I'd go totally balistic. -Sharon Owner women rocks-and-fossils witi-east From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 15:03:54 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA23358; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 15:03:54 GMT Received: from mailgate.prod.aol.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA23352; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 08:03:47 -0700 From: pmdatropos@aol.com Received: by mailgate.prod.aol.net (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA19722; Mon, 25 Apr 94 11:01:03 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Message-Id: <9404251100.tn03378@aol.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 11:00:37 EDT Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Sharon Shea writes: >> I also get the impression that there is a misunderstanding about our ideas. >> America Online is not going to simply move lists to our internal news >> hierarchy without warning, nor are we trying to force list owners to >> acquiesce. Providing access to a mailing list via our -local distribution- >It would be helpful to get some clarificatin here before keel over from >astonishment. Are you implying that there is a concept that lists could >be moved without warning. And 'not trying to force'? The choice of words >no doubt gives the comments an uneasy feeling you may not intend, but >'force' and 'warning' just seem to give me uneasy feeling. I can't >imagine that anyone would touch any darn thing about a list without this >being the total wish of the list owner. If anyone posted any of my list >messages on a newsgroup without my knowing, I'd go totally balistic. Sorry, I'm obviously not doing a great job of being clear. My point is that we will not be providing the lists-->news 'gateway' without warning to list owners. In simpler terms, if you don't want your list to accessible to our members over our news-reader, we won't do it. If you don't have problems with the project, then we'll work with you to encourage America Online members who currently subscribe via e-mail to participate in the 'gated' newsgroup/list instead. Is this a little clearer? __ David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com, atropos@aol.net) \/ System Administrator, America Online, Inc. Tel.: +1 703/556-3725 From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 15:19:42 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA23499; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 15:19:42 GMT Received: from mailgate.prod.aol.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA23492; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 08:19:26 -0700 From: pmdatropos@aol.com Received: by mailgate.prod.aol.net (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA00896; Mon, 25 Apr 94 11:16:37 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Message-Id: <9404251116.tn03878@aol.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 11:16:29 EDT Subject: Re: AOL Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Gess Shankar writes: >Even though distributed mail has the Reply-To: set to the list address, >the mailer they use seems to want to send the reply mail to the From_ or >Sender: address. This is odd. When I receive mail from my LISTSERV-hosted list, the address to which our mailer attempts to reply *is* the address specified in the (original) reply-to field. A typical header would include: Reply-To: foobar-l@baz.edu Sender: foobar-l@baz.edu From: person@wherever.com (Actual Human Poster) X-To: foobar-l@baz.com To: foobar-l@baz.com When I reply, the reply is automatically sent to foobar-l@baz.com. Since I've instructed my list to respect author-supplied Reply-to headers, our mailer will reply to the correct address (assuming the original author supplies it). When replying to *this* list, however, our mailer attempts to reply to the author. The headers from your original message are: To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Gess Shankar Reply-To: gess@knex.mind.org (Gess Shankar) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Since the Reply-to: field points to you, our mailer defaults to replying to you. Is it possible that whatever software you are using to manage your lists is incorrectly configured? It is notable that to the AOL subscriber, mail which arrives with an original Reply-To: header will *appear* as coming -from- the Reply-To: address when they read it. This may be the source of some confusion. >They also send the commands to the same address which >is the mailer-daemon and not the server alias. This continues to happen >despite frequent administrivia postings to the list, explaining the >headers and the various addresses therein. When they find out the List >addresses, guess where they send the sub/unsub commands to..? Irritable, I agree. Also hardly unique to our members. In fact, I had something like this happen not long ago on SoftRevu. Someone from AOL posted an unsubscribe request to the list. I corrected the person, and because I get these kinds of requests from all over the net I posted Yet Another Clarification message. Despite this, I have seen a long string of (primarily non-AOL) people posting "please unsubscribe me" messages. Don't people *read* administrative messages any more? >When combined with the fact that AOLers seem to want to get on and off >lists for the heck of it, this becomes a pain to administer. (Especially >nasty are those who subscribe and then send mail to list-owner, list >etc. screaming ... "Stop sending this garbage, I am not interested") Also quite irritating, and also hardly limited to America Online members, from my experiences on my own and other lists (the Trumpet software lists are a good example). Perhaps the authors of list-managing software need to write code to set up "probationary" periods for lists: once someone joins, they can only -read- the list for a set period of time, after which they are allowed to post. __ David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com, atropos@aol.net) \/ System Administrator, America Online, Inc. Tel.: +1 703/556-3725 From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 15:36:11 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA23617; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 15:36:11 GMT Received: from z.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA23611; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 08:36:01 -0700 Received: from localhost (mmorse@localhost) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id LAA08074; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 11:36:25 -0400 Message-Id: <199404251536.LAA08074@z.nsf.gov> From: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 11:36:25 EDT In-Reply-To: pmdatropos@aol.com "Re: AOL" (Apr 25, 11:16am) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: pmdatropos@aol.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > When replying to *this* list, however, our mailer attempts to reply to the > author. The headers from your original message are: > > To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM > From: Gess Shankar > Reply-To: gess@knex.mind.org (Gess Shankar) > Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM > Is it possible that whatever software you are using to manage your lists is > incorrectly configured? It is notable that to the AOL subscriber, mail which > arrives with an original Reply-To: header will *appear* as coming -from- the > Reply-To: address when they read it. This may be the source of some > confusion. Having "reply-to" point to the list is, for the most part, the "BITNET way". Many Internet folks hate it, because it breaks the concept of "reply to author" vs "reply to all recipients" that is built into popular Internet mail agents. This is a deep cultural chasm, so most mail list software (including BITNET's LISTSERV) allow the list administrator to configure the software either way. Yes, mail agents that are gatewayed to the Internet (such as AOL) have problems where the exact RFC822 semantics make a difference, and mailing lists are one area in which this is true. But AOL is certainly not alone in this regard. --Mike >From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Apr 25 11:25:07 1994 Received: from note1.nsf.gov (note1.nsf.gov [128.150.11.1]) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id LAA08056 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 11:25:06 -0400 Received: from relay2.UU.NET by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA17412 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 25 Apr 1994 11:25:15 -0400 Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwneb01209; Mon, 25 Apr 94 11:21:12 -0400 Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA23499; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 15:19:42 GMT Received: from mailgate.prod.aol.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA23492; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 08:19:26 -0700 From: pmdatropos@aol.com Received: by mailgate.prod.aol.net (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA00896; Mon, 25 Apr 94 11:16:37 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Message-Id: <9404251116.tn03878@aol.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 11:16:29 EDT Subject: Re: AOL Sender: List-Managers-Owner@greatcircle.com Precedence: bulk Status: ORr Gess Shankar writes: >Even though distributed mail has the Reply-To: set to the list address, >the mailer they use seems to want to send the reply mail to the From_ or >Sender: address. This is odd. When I receive mail from my LISTSERV-hosted list, the address to which our mailer attempts to reply *is* the address specified in the (original) reply-to field. A typical header would include: Reply-To: foobar-l@baz.edu Sender: foobar-l@baz.edu From: person@wherever.com (Actual Human Poster) X-To: foobar-l@baz.com To: foobar-l@baz.com When I reply, the reply is automatically sent to foobar-l@baz.com. Since I've instructed my list to respect author-supplied Reply-to headers, our mailer will reply to the correct address (assuming the original author supplies it). When replying to *this* list, however, our mailer attempts to reply to the author. The headers from your original message are: To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Gess Shankar Reply-To: gess@knex.mind.org (Gess Shankar) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Since the Reply-to: field points to you, our mailer defaults to replying to you. Is it possible that whatever software you are using to manage your lists is incorrectly configured? It is notable that to the AOL subscriber, mail which arrives with an original Reply-To: header will *appear* as coming -from- the Reply-To: address when they read it. This may be the source of some confusion. >They also send the commands to the same address which >is the mailer-daemon and not the server alias. This continues to happen >despite frequent administrivia postings to the list, explaining the >headers and the various addresses therein. When they find out the List >addresses, guess where they send the sub/unsub commands to..? Irritable, I agree. Also hardly unique to our members. In fact, I had something like this happen not long ago on SoftRevu. Someone from AOL posted an unsubscribe request to the list. I corrected the person, and because I get these kinds of requests from all over the net I posted Yet Another Clarification message. Despite this, I have seen a long string of (primarily non-AOL) people posting "please unsubscribe me" messages. Don't people *read* administrative messages any more? >When combined with the fact that AOLers seem to want to get on and off >lists for the heck of it, this becomes a pain to administer. (Especially >nasty are those who subscribe and then send mail to list-owner, list >etc. screaming ... "Stop sending this garbage, I am not interested") Also quite irritating, and also hardly limited to America Online members, from my experiences on my own and other lists (the Trumpet software lists are a good example). Perhaps the authors of list-managing software need to write code to set up "probationary" periods for lists: once someone joins, they can only -read- the list for a set period of time, after which they are allowed to post. __ David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com, atropos@aol.net) \/ System Administrator, America Online, Inc. Tel.: +1 703/556-3725 From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 15:39:57 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA23671; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 15:39:57 GMT Received: from z.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA23665; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 08:39:45 -0700 Received: from localhost (mmorse@localhost) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id LAA08089; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 11:40:06 -0400 Message-Id: <199404251540.LAA08089@z.nsf.gov> From: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 11:40:06 EDT In-Reply-To: Sharon Shea "Re: Superhighway Growth" (Apr 25, 10:53am) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: Sharon Shea , pmdatropos@aol.com Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > If anyone posted any of my list > messages on a newsgroup without my knowing, I'd go totally balistic. To be fair, AOL never suggested that they would do this. They are proposing to post list messages to an *internal* news-reader, for the benefit of their subscribers. --Mike From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 16:02:51 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA23830; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:02:51 GMT Received: from sunshine.eushc.org by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA23824; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:02:44 -0700 Received: from knex.UUCP (root@localhost) by sunshine.eushc.org (8.6.8.1/EUSHC) with UUCP id MAA18682; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 12:03:15 -0400 Received: by mind.org (8.6.8.1/MIND.ORG) with UUCP id IAA09392; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 08:26:29 -0400 Received: by knex.mind.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Mon, 25 Apr 94 07:57:52 EST for list-managers@greatcircle.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Here's a question for you all... From: Gess Shankar Reply-To: gess@knex.mind.org (Gess Shankar) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 07:53:53 EDT In-Reply-To: <199404250525.BAA06926@intercon.com> Organization: |<><>| Knowledge Exchange, GA, USA |<><>| Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) writes: > So. > We've all gotten really sick and tired of misdirected sub and unsub > requests. > The question is, do all of you who run automated list maintainence SW > have the -request set correctly so that, at the VERY least, > the user who uses that address gets a note saying that this is an > automated system and to do the following...? > I really hope so... Yes, I do so for all my lists. But this rarely gets used. Only people who are veterans use such tactics. They also ask for 'help' when needed and then do the needful. -request convention is totally unknown to many of the newcomers on the net scene. GeSS -- Gess Shankar |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.mind.ORG |<><>| From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 16:40:29 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA24050; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:40:29 GMT Received: from CVI.HAHNEMANN.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA24043; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:40:03 -0700 Received: by cvi.hahnemann.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 22912; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 12:34:49 EDT Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 12:34:43 EDT From: "Anthony J. Rzepela" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Message-ID: <0097D7BF.EF7D4A00.22912@cvi.hahnemann.edu> Subject: On local redistribution of mail list output Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I am only half-surprised at the reaction to AOL's plan to cut down on incoming email traffic by using their "local distribution" news groups to house mailing list traffic for their readers. For while I am surprised that people didn't understand O'Donnell's point right off the bat, I CAN understand the reservations one would have about assurances from AOL that it would be "done right". (It didn't help to wave the red flag of USENET NEWSGROUPS). Just last week, the Rolling Stones list 'Undercover' was hit with about a half-dozen messages on everything from Exabyte tape drives, to a way to substitute for 'WHERE' clauses using Paradox for Windows. The source of this was a site run by inexperienced people who were trying to work out some email<-->USENET gateway solution. Apparently, all their regular outgoing USENET traffic, regardless of topic, came on to our list, including a one-word message saying "test" (How Yoko-esque!) (The site's admin, he of the ten-line .sig, told the Undercover admin that he was 'lucky' that someone was onsite who knew what he was doing, and could put a stop to the problem). At the "official" machine on campus here, where all students, staff, and faculty get their Internet access, the VMS software BULLETIN was installed to house incoming email list traffic. One really wonderful feature of this, which I don't think has been mentioned, is that unlike NEWS, where, once you discover a group of likely interest, you can scan many articles covering weeks' worth of traffic for tone and content, mailing lists usually do not offer this advantage. You sign up for a list, and it may be quite some time before you get an idea of what things are like, particularly on a slow list. Availability of a bunch of traffic may "calm down" newbies a bit, and O'Donnell is right - it is a very good solution to the invasion of subscriptions with week-long lifespans. I would also point out that for lists whose traffic and content one might not want to have their email address associated with on a remote machine, but which one would still like to read, setups like this provide an opportunity to for these hyper-paranoid types to access list traffic via their newsreader, unsubbing to the 'group' when off, and staying calm. As has been wisely pointed out here, lists are less rigid in style and approach than USENET groups, where you basically have only moderated and unmoderated. Lists lead rich and varied lifestyles, and my only concern is that the functionality of an off-the-shelf newsreader, a subset of the functionality of an ideal, full-featured list reader, will create problems for both AOL admins, and list admins. +--------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------+ |Tony Rzepela || | +--------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------+ From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 16:47:08 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA24089; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:47:08 GMT Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA24083; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:46:58 -0700 Received: from localhost (pjg@localhost) by urth (8.6.8/8.6.4) with SMTP id MAA16989 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 12:47:25 -0400 Message-Id: <199404251647.MAA16989@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: urth.acsu.buffalo.edu: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth In-reply-to: A message of "Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:53:09 EDT." MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 12:47:24 -0400 From: Paul Graham Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk i'm sorry but at this point i'm terminally confused. am i the only person who completely fails to see the reason for all this noise over AOL. the mail seemed clear to me. they would, under some circumstances, after what appear to me to be reasonable steps, arrange for some mailing lists to be available to some AOL users as (presumably) local newsgroups. you know if you all are so possessive about the fine details of delivery to your readers i suggest you prepare a clear and emphatic introductory document for your list(s) and mail it out on a monthly basis. therein you can threaten appropriate dire consequences. if nothing else is going to come of the growth of the internet we can expect that a tremendously widening dissemination of information will. relax now before the stress kills you. -------- it was written: If anyone posted any of my list messages on a newsgroup without my knowing, I'd go totally balistic. ------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 16:53:35 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA24114; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:53:35 GMT Received: from Thinkage.On.CA by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA24108; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:53:25 -0700 Received: from localhost (kgdykes@localhost) by thinkage.thinkage.on.ca (8.6.4/Thinkage940206) id MAA08571 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 12:53:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 12:53:32 -0400 From: Ken Dykes Message-Id: <199404251653.MAA08571@Thinkage.On.CA> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL impresses me Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From: pmdatropos@aol.com >Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 09:42:38 EDT >Subject: Re: AOL impresses me > >Ken Dykes writes: >>when i sent my "form/update" to them in late march, i never received >>an ACK, or a statement that there were any problems incorporating it. > >...or have worked with me to >provide better information. rather than you working with them... >cover motorcyling. I do not believe that your "extra requirements" >-exclusively- aimed at America Online members are fair to them, so I made the >decision not to replace your old entry with the new, discriminatory one. you made a decision. fine. no problem. really. seriously. would it have been TOO much trouble to drop me a note saying you were not going to incorporate the information? (considering i was running by your statement of: send back the form and i will incorporate it. the onus is on you when the behavior is not as the expectation you raised) * as i said in an earlier message, * information has to be EXTRACTED from you. btw, was is merely the principle of discriminatory requirements that you balked at, or some specific requirement? if, as you also once claimed, you are keeping an eye on Stephanie's list you would have noticed i have incorporated some of those changes in my world/general requirements. Only the cute phrase (to show they can read) and sending me a copy of the AOL database entry are actually specific to AOL. oh well, i really dont need to pursue this anymore. - Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca postmaster@thinkage.com harley-request@thinkage.on.ca thinkage!kgdykes From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 16:58:55 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA24168; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:58:55 GMT Received: from walt.disney.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA24162; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:58:44 -0700 From: sullivan@fa.disney.com Received: from dalsdb by walt.disney.com with SMTP id AA18954 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.3 for List-Managers@greatcircle.com); Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:59:11 -0700 Received: from joanna.wdp_animation by dalsdb with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #53) id m0pvTwR-000Fc0C; Mon, 25 Apr 94 09:55 PDT Message-Id: Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 09:55 PDT To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > We (America Online) are working on a mechanism to provide mailing lists over > our USENET news reader. Once testing is complete, we will be contacting list > owners to work with them to provide their lists to our users in thi fashion. > We believe that the provision of a single, stable point-of-presence will > prove a benefit to the majority of mailing lists to which our members > currently subscribe via e-mail. It will also have the benefit of decreasing > our e-mail traffic somewhat, which last I heard was approximately 6,000,000 > messages a month. I, for one, welcome this. I have a few redistribution addresses already in my list with no problem. With over 100 AOL subscribers, and getting more every day, mail redistribution is a win-win situation for me: I reduce the number of addresses I have to send to and AOL reduces its mail traffic. Note that the above message says AOL will be contacting list owners before doing this. To me, it sounds like they're not going to blanketly (is that a word?) make all mailing lists available as newsgroups; just the ones that list owners agree to. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. BTW, thanks for all the feedback to my original "Superhighway Growth" post. Nice to see I'm not alone in this Internet explosion. Michael Sullivan sullivan@fa.disney.com Walt Disney Feature Animation +1 818 544 2683 (voice) Glendale, CA +1 818 544 4579 (fax) From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 17:00:43 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA24211; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 17:00:43 GMT Received: from midway.uchicago.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA24205; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:00:28 -0700 From: ckoenig@midway.uchicago.edu Received: from kimbark.uchicago.edu by midway.uchicago.edu for List-Managers@greatcircle.com Mon, 25 Apr 94 12:00:47 CDT Received: from localhost.uchicago.edu by kimbark.uchicago.edu (4.1/UCCO-1.0A) id AA01255; Mon, 25 Apr 94 12:00:12 CDT Message-Id: <9404251700.AA01255@kimbark.uchicago.edu> To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Interface to FAQ's/Administrivia In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 25 Apr 94 08:36:34 PDT." <199404251536.IAA23633@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 12:00:11 -0500 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Let's talk blue-sky for a moment and get some perspective, OK? I get the feeling that we're using the wrong user interface, and that someday there will be a new, more appropriate one, for participating in non-realtime group discussions. The problems we're discussing appear to be problems caused by our use of old inadequate user interfaces and paradigms for what we're trying to do. Whether we're using netnews or e-mail lists, discussing whether they should be gatewayed, etc., one of the biggest problems is that important information is not available at the moment when it's needed. That's why the same FAQ's are asked over and over again, that's why administrative requests go to the list posting address, that's why there are idiosyncracies in administrative addresses and procedures at some sites, using some list processing software, etc. etc. etc. Then there's the question of who can read messages, and who can post messages, and who can see the subscriber names/addresses, for a list, or for a local subset/redistribution/newsgroup version of a bigger list. What we really need is a nonrealtime group discussion bboard/forum interface which always has the administrative instructions either onscreen or available at the touch of a button/menu, AND which also has an up to date FAQ list available too. And which has control over who can subscribe or unsubscribe, who can read and post messages, even who can see the list of subscribers/readers (remember, in the real world, I can read a sample/single copy of a magazine without having to "subscribe", and I can write a letter to the editor without being a subscriber either.... and more importantly, there's an editor, maybe referees, classified ads, etc.!) I keep thinking that the FAQ lists and administrative instructions should be taken "out of band", not just periodically re-posted along with ordinary messages where they get lost. "Where do I get the FAQ for this list/newsgroup", how many times have you seen messages like that? This is a failure of the system, you can't blame the users! Finally let me mention Nathaniel Borenstein's work (nsb@nsb.fv.com, formerly nsb@thumper.bellcore.com). I think Nathaniel's working on the right track to help solve these problems for the future. He developed the Andrew Message System, especailly the unified concept of identical-looking "folders" for all mail, local bboards, Internet lists, Dow Jones info service, and netnews. The AMS installation at Carnegie Mellon subscribes to all known Internet mailing lists and makes them available as public shared bboard folders, kind of the way AOL is planning to do it, but using AMS instead of netnews. (many of you list owners have "arpalists+list-name@andrew.cmu.edu" as a subscriber, and that gets posted to the local bboard folder) The AMS folders (whether your own private mail, or netnews newsgroups, or shared public bboards, or semi-private departmental bboards, or Internet lists, or Dow Jones feeds) are each in individual Andrew File System (AFS) directories, each with the possibility of controlling access through the use of AFS ACL's (Access control lists) and AFS protection groups. This gives much more fine grained control than the wide open use of netnews broadcast, or the bandwidth-wasting use of private personal mailboxes. Educational class discussions, in particular, are faciliated when the instructor can easily create multiple discussion folders, each with different access lists, using AFS protection groups, for different sections, TA's, public forums, etc. Another important AMS feature, available in its flagship X-Windows user interface "Messages" is an info file for each folder on the system, where a FAQ or administrative info message can be stored and made available on demand when the user needs it the most. (if a custom Info file is not created, the default is to display the very first message in the folder, which is usually a "new folder creation" message) Nathaniel also developed MIME after he left CMU for Bellcore, where his name might be more well known. Now Nathaniel's working on something new, he calls it the "Electronic Eclectic", it will be some kind of online multimedia magazine system and experimental user interfaces, and I'm supposed to become one of the first pioneer "editors" at some point when it's ready for a trial. Chris Koenigsberg: ckk@uchicago.edu, ckoenig@midway.uchicago.edu U. of Chicago Academic Information Technologies Voice 1-312-702-8189, FAX 1-312-702-3219 From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 10:30:19 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA24537; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 17:25:38 GMT Received: from Tux.Music.ASU.Edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA24530; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:25:25 -0700 From: Ben.Goren@asu.edu Received: from Tux.Music.ASU.Edu by Tux.Music.ASU.Edu (5.64/A/UX-3.00) id AA00200; Mon, 25 Apr 94 10:26:07 MST Message-Id: <9404251726.AA00200@Tux.Music.ASU.Edu> X-Sender: ben@localhost Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:26:20 -0700 To: pmdatropos@aol.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:16 AM 4/25/94 -0400, pmdatropos@aol.com wrote: >[. . .] Don't people *read* >administrative messages any more? [. . . .] No. Just a couple weeks ago, I set SINFONIA to just accept posts from subscribers--I can't remember the last time that somebody not on the list sent a message that wasn't a subscription request. I sent a note at the same time describing what I had done and warning that a couple people might have trouble sending as a result, but just let me know and I'll fix it ASAP. Three days later, I got an irate note from a subscriber asking why the H*ll his message got sent back to him.... >__ David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com, atropos@aol.net) >\/ System Administrator, America Online, Inc. > Tel.: +1 703/556-3725 b& ---- Ben.Goren@asu.edu, Arizona State University School of Music Protect your privacy; oppose Clipper. Write to me for info. Finger ben@tux.music.asu.edu for PGP 2.3a public key. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 17:53:59 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA24788; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 17:53:59 GMT Received: from hermes.acs.ryerson.ca by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA24782; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:52:26 -0700 Received: by hermes.acs.ryerson.ca (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA22001; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:51:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:51:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Ribeiro Subject: Re: AOL To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9404251726.AA00200@Tux.Music.ASU.Edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Take a look at the article someone posted on alt.online-service, it's a repost of an article in the San Jose Mercury News re: the Internets reception of AOL users.... /P From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 19:35:29 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA25800; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 19:35:29 GMT Received: from sunshine.eushc.org by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA25790; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 12:34:55 -0700 Received: from knex.UUCP (root@localhost) by sunshine.eushc.org (8.6.8.1/EUSHC) with UUCP id PAA01246; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 15:35:19 -0400 Received: by mind.org (8.6.8.1/MIND.ORG) with UUCP id PAA11335; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 15:05:09 -0400 Received: by knex.mind.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Mon, 25 Apr 94 14:39:23 EST for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM To: pmdatropos@aol.com Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL From: Gess Shankar Reply-To: gess@knex.mind.org (Gess Shankar) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 14:22:11 EDT In-Reply-To: <9404251116.tn03878@aol.com> Organization: |<><>| Knowledge Exchange, GA, USA |<><>| Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk pmdatropos@aol.com writes: > Gess Shankar writes: > > >Even though distributed mail has the Reply-To: set to the list address, > >the mailer they use seems to want to send the reply mail to the From_ or > >Sender: address. > > This is odd. When I receive mail from my LISTSERV-hosted list, the address to > which our mailer attempts to reply *is* the address specified in the > (original) reply-to field. A typical header would include: > > Reply-To: foobar-l@baz.edu > Sender: foobar-l@baz.edu > From: person@wherever.com (Actual Human Poster) > X-To: foobar-l@baz.com > To: foobar-l@baz.com > > When I reply, the reply is automatically sent to foobar-l@baz.com. Since I've > instructed my list to respect author-supplied Reply-to headers, our mailer > will reply to the correct address (assuming the original author supplies it). > No, this is not odd. Most mailing list software will allow configuration of Reply-To: header either to point to the list (Discussion Lists are for discussions) or to the original poster (Reply to author, but if it is important for the list then take pains to direct mail to the list address). This depends on the list owner's philosophy as to how this should be. > When replying to *this* list, however, our mailer attempts to reply to the > author. The headers from your original message are: > > To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM > From: Gess Shankar > Reply-To: gess@knex.mind.org (Gess Shankar) > Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM > > Since the Reply-to: field points to you, our mailer defaults to replying to > you. > Then some users are doing something special to cause the mail to go to the From_ address. Honoring the Reply-To: is all I require, as I want the responses to go to the list for the most part. Headers from my list look like this. >From KNEXMAILER Sender: MAILSERV@mysite.domain From: @hissite.domain To: @mysite.domain Reply-To: @mysite.domain Errors-To: KNEXMAILER@mysite.domain Consistently I see Replies AND postings go to KNEXMAILER and not to @mysite.domain, which you claim your mailer will do and which is what I want to happen. > Is it possible that whatever software you are using to manage your lists is > incorrectly configured? It is notable that to the AOL subscriber, mail which > arrives with an original Reply-To: header will *appear* as coming -from- the > Reply-To: address when they read it. This may be the source of some > confusion. > I am not sure I know what you are talking about here. > >They also send the commands to the same address which > >is the mailer-daemon and not the server alias. This continues to happen > >despite frequent administrivia postings to the list, explaining the > >headers and the various addresses therein. When they find out the List > >addresses, guess where they send the sub/unsub commands to..? > > Irritable, I agree. Also hardly unique to our members. In fact, I had > something like this happen not long ago on SoftRevu. Someone from AOL posted > an unsubscribe request to the list. I corrected the person, and because I get > these kinds of requests from all over the net I posted Yet Another > Clarification message. Despite this, I have seen a long string of (primarily > non-AOL) people posting "please unsubscribe me" messages. Don't people *read* > administrative messages any more? > This is true. In my case, this happens more often with the aol people, mainly because there seems to be a tendency for aol'ers to get on and off lists more often. > >When combined with the fact that AOLers seem to want to get on and off > >lists for the heck of it, this becomes a pain to administer. (Especially > >nasty are those who subscribe and then send mail to list-owner, list > >etc. screaming ... "Stop sending this garbage, I am not interested") > > Also quite irritating, and also hardly limited to America Online members, > from my experiences on my own and other lists (the Trumpet software lists are > a good example). > AOL seems to stand out because of the number of people who subscribe to lists without really knowing what the list is all about and then want to get off because of meaningless (to them) mail. > Perhaps the authors of list-managing software need to write code to set up > "probationary" periods for lists: once someone joins, they can only -read- > the list for a set period of time, after which they are allowed to post. > > __ David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com, atropos@aol.net) > \/ System Administrator, America Online, Inc. > Tel.: +1 703/556-3725 GeSS -- Gess Shankar |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.mind.ORG |<><>| From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 20:39:03 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA26270; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 20:39:03 GMT Received: from news.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA26264; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:38:55 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by news.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.1) id AA26489; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:39:10 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA07074; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:38:55 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:38:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Reply-To: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is this a little clearer? > Yup, although something like 'without asking' would have gone down easier than 'without warning.' Not your fault, really, since there is built-in paranoia from those who administrate women's interest lists. Keeping these lists - and their conversations - private is a real issue. I didn't list my women's list on the 'list of lists' since I noticed you picked up my rocks-and-fossils list from that source. Unfortuanately, there is harassment of women's lists. I haven't had much of it, but it's serious when it does happen. Actually had to contact the police over one incident that had a woman feeling she might be physically threatend. Really too bad about this. I hate to have women (or anybody) feeling they have to hide out on the internet. Just gotta keep pace with it and do the best I guess. -Sharon owner/women rocks-and-fossils From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 20:42:56 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA26316; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 20:42:56 GMT Received: from news.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA26309; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:42:48 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by news.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.1) id AA27107; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:43:11 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA08629; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:43:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:43:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth To: "Michael H. Morse" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199404251540.LAA08089@z.nsf.gov> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > To be fair, AOL never suggested that they would do this. They are > proposing to post list messages to an *internal* news-reader, for the > benefit of their subscribers. > > --Mike > My last message re women's interests sheds light on this I think. In such instances any posting beyond the list membership can be a problem. -Sharon From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 20:53:08 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA26411; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 20:53:08 GMT Received: from cs.umb.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA26405; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:52:55 -0700 Received: from terminus.cs.umb.edu by cs.umb.edu with SMTP id AA08787 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:53:11 -0400 Message-Id: <199404252053.AA08787@cs.umb.edu> To: David Casti Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: list membership security In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 24 Apr 1994 20:02:06 EDT." Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:53:10 -0400 From: "John P. Rouillard" Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , David Casti writes: > > Majordomo will limit access to members addresses to members only, however - > > is there a way to hide addresses from list members as well? > > Concern I'm hearing about is that someone could get signed on, do 'who' > > and then split with the info. > > Yes, I run several lists where members feel the need to remain private > and had the same concerns about majordomo. The easiest solution I've > found is simply patch the majordomo perl file so "who" doesn't work any > more. Change the keyword "who" to "green" or "horse" or some other > random word. Then update the help file to indicate that 'who' has been > disabled on your list server. Sorry, but there are other ways of getting info about the lists bsesiges using who. Here is part of the mailing list dc-motss [Actual email addresses deleted for privacy. -Moderator] -- John John Rouillard Special Projects Volunteer University of Massachusetts at Boston rouilj@cs.umb.edu (preferred) Boston, MA, (617) 287-6480 =============================================================================== My employers don't acknowledge my existence much less my opinions. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 20:59:37 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA26473; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 20:59:37 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA26467; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:59:25 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA01890; Mon, 25 Apr 94 16:55:38 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:50:22 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Subject: Re: list membership security To: "John P. Rouillard" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199404252053.AA08787@cs.umb.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > Yes, I run several lists where members feel the need to remain private > > and had the same concerns about majordomo. The easiest solution I've > > found is simply patch the majordomo perl file so "who" doesn't work any > > more. Change the keyword "who" to "green" or "horse" or some other > > random word. Then update the help file to indicate that 'who' has been > > disabled on your list server. > > Sorry, but there are other ways of getting info about the lists > bsesiges using who. Here is part of the mailing list dc-motss Your point? If I was concerned about an "EXPN attack", I could disable that command in my copy of sendmail. (I happen to think that is an unfortunate solution and have no intention of implementing it.) We were talking about 'who' and majordomo. I still say that is one feature which users don't need. If they are bright enough to monkey around with port 25, they *certainly* don't need 'who'. The lists which folks get paranoid about are generally protected by concealing the list exploder address behind a script or (better yet) via BCC -- so only the list moderator knows the "real" list address. David. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 21:14:45 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA26590; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 21:14:45 GMT Received: from remarque.berkeley.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA26584; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 14:14:38 -0700 Received: by remarque.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.31) id OAA21282; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 14:15:08 -0700 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 14:15:08 -0700 From: mcb@remarque.berkeley.edu (Michael C. Berch) Message-Id: <199404252115.OAA21282@remarque.berkeley.edu> To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Nigel Whitfield writes: > At the moment, the list I run (uk-motss) supports a little used > 'Distribution:' header. At the moment it's used for the women's > sub-list and for priority messages, which override the digest system. > > I suppose an extension of the suggestion above would be to use > Keywords or Distribution headers, and have the list editors classify > each incoming message, so that it's only sent to people who have > expressed an interest in those subjects. Except that Distribution is already a RFC1036 (Usenet) header, and has specific semantics for news software, having to do with limits on physical propagation of the message according to tables that each site keeps. Given the very high incidence of gatewaying and interoperation of news and mail systems, it would be a very bad idea to promulgate a nonstandard mail header that conflicts with a standard RFC1036 news header. It's just asking for trouble. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@remarque.berkeley.edu From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 21:32:24 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA26734; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 21:32:24 GMT Received: from gold.tc.umn.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA26728; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 14:32:13 -0700 Received: from [134.84.101.227] by gold.tc.umn.edu id SMTP-0012dbc3310a10913; Mon, 25 Apr 94 16:16:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 16:15:14 CST From: "Eric J. Forbis" Message-Id: <69948.forb0004@gold.tc.umn.edu> X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_15 Reply-To: X-POPMail-Charset: English To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:38:55 -0400 (EDT), Sharon Shea wrote: >I didn't list my women's list on the 'list of lists' since I noticed you >picked up my rocks-and-fossils list from that source. Unfortuanately, >there is harassment of women's lists. I haven't had much of it, but it's >serious when it does happen. Actually had to contact the police over one >incident that had a woman feeling she might be physically threatend. >Really too bad about this. I hate to have women (or anybody) feeling they >have to hide out on the internet. Just gotta keep pace with it and do the >best I guess. The only men's list I've looked at was just as harassed by women; ironically, the list is pro- feminist. The only difference between male/female (or any other issue) lists may be a determination to be victims. Women on the inet have reason to celebrate. As of 2 months ago there were at least 19 email lists and usenet newsgroups devoted to women's issues. Compare that to the list of men's groups: 1 pro-feminist email group (doesn't qualify as a men's list, imho), and soc.men. Men complain about the lack of lists. Read soc.men to get a clear view of how "harassment" isn't a women's lists issue. Regards, =================================================================== Eric J. Forbis forb0004@gold.tc.umn.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Conscience, they tell us, is the creature of prejudice, but I know from experience that conscience persists in following the order of nature in spite of all the laws of man." _Emile_, Rousseau =================================================================== From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 22:09:57 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA27092; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 22:09:57 GMT Received: from MIT.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA27086; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 15:09:48 -0700 From: pshuang@MIT.EDU Received: from M11-116-3.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AB21320; Mon, 25 Apr 94 18:09:52 EDT Received: by m11-116-3.MIT.EDU (5.57/4.7) id AA18702; Mon, 25 Apr 94 18:09:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 18:09:43 -0400 Message-Id: <9404252209.AA18702@m11-116-3.MIT.EDU> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: "Eric J. Forbis"'s message of Mon, 25 Apr 94 16:15:14 CST <69948.forb0004@gold.tc.umn.edu> Subject: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I don't think Sharon implied in any of her messages that mailing lists for women are the only ones subject to on-line harassment, or that women are the only group who are subject to harassment, period. Be that as it may that there are N lists/newsgroups for one group and K lists/newsgroups for another, I don't see that this direction for the thread would have any *PARTICULAR* relevance to the list-managers mailing list. Yes, there are mailing lists whose members or whose owner wishes to keep the subscribers list secret, for various reasons, including prevention of on-line and/or off-line harassment of subscribers. Yes, there are various technical means to obtain that information from mailing list software. Yes, there are various technical means to prevent obtaining that information from mailing list software. OK, then. I think we've beaten that thread to death. :) --- Yours in Leadership, Friendship, and Service, Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@mit.edu), probably speaking for himself From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 22:25:20 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA27237; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 22:25:20 GMT Received: from news.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA27227; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 15:24:55 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by news.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.1) id AA05000; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 18:25:02 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA03131; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 18:24:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 18:24:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth To: "Eric J. Forbis" Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <69948.forb0004@gold.tc.umn.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > The only men's list I've looked at was just as harassed by women; > ironically, the list is pro- feminist. The only difference between > male/female (or any other issue) lists may be a determination to be > victims. I'm not sure about the 'determination to be victim' thing. As everywhere, you do run into screwballs. The one I had big trouble with accused me of being a fascist pig, who, because I was an administrator, was single-handedly responsible for the collapse of feminism. Far out. I had no idea who this joker was before he arrived with this diatribe. Needless to say, I don't take this stuff personally. But I sure did get him off the list, and with the help of his address sysops, out of my hair. BTW, let me offer a special round of applause for the sysadmins out there who have helped me deal with net harassers. > Women on the inet have reason to celebrate. As of 2 months ago > there were at least 19 email lists and usenet newsgroups devoted to women's > issues. Compare that to the list of men's groups: 1 pro-feminist email > group (doesn't qualify as a men's list, imho), and soc.men. Men complain > about the lack of lists. Read soc.men to get a clear view of how > "harassment" isn't a women's lists issue. For sure harassment isn't just a women's (gender only) list issue. We do make that point on our list...we welcome all to make a collective respone to this problem. -Sharon owner/women /rocks-and-fossils From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 01:08:38 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id BAA28051; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 01:08:38 GMT Received: from post.demon.co.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA28045; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 18:08:23 -0700 Received: from stonewall.demon.co.uk by post.demon.co.uk id aa01987; 26 Apr 94 2:01 GMT-60:00 From: Nigel Whitfield Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 01:24:39 BST In-Reply-To: List-Managers-Digest-Owner@greatcircle.com's message 'List Managers Digest V3 #76' of Mon 25 Apr Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List Managers Digest V3 #76 Message-ID: <9404260124.aa07802@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: mcb@remarque.berkeley.edu (Michael C. Berch) > Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 14:15:08 -0700 > Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth > > Except that Distribution is already a RFC1036 (Usenet) header, and has > specific semantics for news software, having to do with limits on physical > propagation of the message according to tables that each site keeps. > > Given the very high incidence of gatewaying and interoperation of news > and mail systems, it would be a very bad idea to promulgate a nonstandard > mail header that conflicts with a standard RFC1036 news header. It's > just asking for trouble. It could be an issue if we gatewayed uk-motss into news, but we don't. Since the Distribution header can be used to restrict distribution according to network or geographical means, as with Usenet, it seemed like a sensible header to use when I wrote the list software. If you can suggest something else that will be meaningful to list members who want to limit distribution of their messages, I'd be interested. Nigel. -- [Nigel Whitfield nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk] [For details on the uk-motss mailing list mail uk-motss-request@pyra.co.uk] [***** All demon.co.uk sites are independently run internet hosts *****] From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 01:12:02 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id BAA28075; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 01:12:02 GMT Received: from post.demon.co.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA28069; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 18:11:48 -0700 Received: from stonewall.demon.co.uk by post.demon.co.uk id ab01987; 26 Apr 94 2:01 GMT-60:00 From: Nigel Whitfield Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 01:34:56 BST In-Reply-To: List-Managers-Digest-Owner@greatcircle.com's message 'List Managers Digest V3 #75' of Mon 25 Apr Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List Managers Digest V3 #75 Message-ID: <9404260134.aa07811@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: pmdatropos@aol.com > Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 11:16:29 EDT > Subject: Re: AOL [..] > Perhaps the authors of list-managing software need to write code to set up > "probationary" periods for lists: once someone joins, they can only -read- > the list for a set period of time, after which they are allowed to post. I do something like this manually; the software that I use is configured to allow for separate sender and recipients lists, generated from a master file. When a new member is added, they just have a master file entry that allows them to receive messages, so the first couple of things sent are picked up by the software and sent to the maintainer as a 'Failed authorisation' which can then be sent on if necessary with a script called from the mailer. The original intention was to avoid people joining just so that they could flame the membership, but these days it tends to pick up the people who join and don't bother to read the bit in the info file that tells them how to leave (or the X-Reminder on every message!) I suppose this sort of thing could be automated, but experience suggests that the From: address in people's postings often bears little resemblance to the address you're using to reach them. The worst so far was an incoming address that managed to combine !, @ , " and :: all in one line. Nigel. From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 18:50:26 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id BAA28289; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 01:49:01 GMT Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA28279; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 18:48:52 -0700 Message-Id: <199404260148.SAA28279@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: David Casti cc: "John P. Rouillard" , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: list membership security In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 18:48:50 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk David Casti writes: # > > Yes, I run several lists where members feel the need to remain private # > > and had the same concerns about majordomo. The easiest solution I've # > > found is simply patch the majordomo perl file so "who" doesn't work any # > > more. Change the keyword "who" to "green" or "horse" or some other # > > random word. Then update the help file to indicate that 'who' has been # > > disabled on your list server. # > # > Sorry, but there are other ways of getting info about the lists # > bsesiges using who. Here is part of the mailing list dc-motss # # Your point? # # If I was concerned about an "EXPN attack", I could disable that command in # my copy of sendmail. (I happen to think that is an unfortunate solution # and have no intention of implementing it.) We were talking about 'who' and # majordomo. I still say that is one feature which users don't need. Well, I disagree with you (obviously; I wrote Majordomo, and given the minimalist approach I took, I wouldn't have put it in there if I hadn't thought there was a good reason for it). John Rouillard is the current developer of Majordomo (I'm too busy with other projects to do any work on it right now), and he apparently disagrees with you too. If you don't like the "who" command in Majordomo, you have 3 options: 1) Don't use Majordomo. 2) Edit the Majordomo code (it's PERL, for god's sake!) to remove the "who" command. 3) Wait for a future release of Majordomo which will allow finer-grain control of "who" (for each list, you'll be able to set whether anybody, only list-members, only the list-owner, or nobody can do a "who") -Brent -- Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | Call or email for info about Brent@GreatCircle.COM | 1057 West Dana Street | upcoming Internet Security +1 415 962 0841 | Mountain View, CA 94041 | Firewalls Tutorial dates From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 20:10:24 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id CAA28679; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 02:44:00 GMT Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA28672; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 19:43:52 -0700 Received: from localhost (pjg@localhost) by urth (8.6.8/8.6.4) with SMTP id WAA24493 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 22:44:19 -0400 Message-Id: <199404260244.WAA24493@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: urth.acsu.buffalo.edu: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list membership security MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 22:44:18 -0400 From: Paul Graham Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk but can horton hear a who? p.s. as has been made abundantly clear this is a *trivial* thing to fix in majordomo. ( i did it by adding a new list type ) -------- it was written: nobody can do a "who" ------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Mon Apr 25 20:20:33 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id CAA28617; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 02:41:05 GMT Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA28610; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 19:40:56 -0700 Message-Id: <199404260240.TAA28610@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: gess@knex.mind.org (Gess Shankar) cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Here's a question for you all... In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 25 Apr 94 07:53:53 EDT Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 19:40:54 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Gess Shankar writes: # jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) writes: # # > So. # > We've all gotten really sick and tired of misdirected sub and unsub # > requests. # > The question is, do all of you who run automated list maintainence SW # > have the -request set correctly so that, at the VERY least, # > the user who uses that address gets a note saying that this is an # > automated system and to do the following...? # > I really hope so... # # Yes, I do so for all my lists. But this rarely gets used. Only people # who are veterans use such tactics. They also ask for 'help' when needed # and then do the needful. # # -request convention is totally unknown to many of the newcomers # on the net scene. Majordomo has filters that I find trap about 85-90% of the misdirected "subscribe/unsubscribe" traffic on the lists I manage (Firewalls, List-Managers, Majordomo-*, and all the SAGE-*@USENIX.ORG lists). Any misdirected message caught in such a trap gets a form letter from me that explains the -request convention. The form letter does NOT tell the user how to use Majordomo; they learn that from the message they get back when they follow the "-request" convention. In this way, I believe I encourage and reinforce use of the "-request" convention. -Brent -- Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | Call or email for info about Brent@GreatCircle.COM | 1057 West Dana Street | upcoming Internet Security +1 415 962 0841 | Mountain View, CA 94041 | Firewalls Tutorial dates From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 04:50:06 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA00382; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 04:50:06 GMT Received: from mordor.cs.du.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA00374; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 21:49:51 -0700 Received: from nyx10.cs.du.edu by mordor.cs.du.edu with SMTP id AA09392 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 25 Apr 1994 22:46:30 -0600 Received: by nyx10.cs.du.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07525; Mon, 25 Apr 94 22:47:47 MDT From: rnovak@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Robert Novak) Message-Id: <9404260447.AA07525@nyx10.cs.du.edu> X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University of Denver. The University has neither control over nor responsibility for the opinions or correct identity of users. Subject: Re: AOL and other vague subject lines To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 22:47:47 -0600 (MDT) Reply-To: rnovak@nyx.cs.du.edu X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2541 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk From: Nigel Whitfield Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 01:34:56 BST >The original intention was to avoid people joining just so that they .could flame the membership, but these days it tends to pick up the >people who join and don't bother to read the bit in the info file that >tells them how to leave (or the X-Reminder on every message!) From: Ben.Goren@asu.edu Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:26:20 -0700 >At 11:16 AM 4/25/94 -0400, pmdatropos@aol.com wrote: >>[. . .] Don't people *read* administrative messages any more? [. . . .] From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 07:04:03 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA00855; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 07:04:03 GMT Received: from gold.tc.umn.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id AAA00849; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 00:03:52 -0700 Received: from [134.84.101.58] by gold.tc.umn.edu id SMTP-0012dbcbcbba27860; Tue, 26 Apr 94 02:03:24 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 94 02:04:06 CST From: "Eric J. Forbis" Message-Id: <23456.forb0004@gold.tc.umn.edu> X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_15 Reply-To: X-POPMail-Charset: English To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Superhighway Growth Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 25 Apr 94 18:09:43 -0400, pshuang@MIT.EDU wrote: >I don't think Sharon implied in any of her messages that mailing lists >for women are the only ones subject to on-line harassment, or that >women are the only group who are subject to harassment, period. Then you should easily be able to list the other groups that Sharon included in her harassment charge. Regards, =================================================================== Eric J. Forbis forb0004@gold.tc.umn.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Conscience, they tell us, is the creature of prejudice, but I know from experience that conscience persists in following the order of nature in spite of all the laws of man." _Emile_, Rousseau =================================================================== From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 03:41:03 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA01693; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 10:11:45 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id DAA01687; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 03:11:34 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA06972; Tue, 26 Apr 94 06:07:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 05:59:56 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Subject: Re: list membership security To: Brent Chapman Cc: "John P. Rouillard" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199404260148.SAA28279@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 25 Apr 1994, Brent Chapman wrote: > > I still say that [who] is one feature which users don't need. > > Well, I disagree with you That's fine with me. Explain to me why users need this feature. > John Rouillard is the current developer of Majordomo, and he apparently > disagrees with you too. That's fine too. You are all entitled to your own opinions; I've certainly never suggested otherwise. > If you don't like the "who" command in Majordomo, you have options: > > 2) Edit the Majordomo code (it's PERL, for god's sake!) to remove the > "who" command. Hello? Have you read my messages at all? Hello? It should be clear that I've selected option #2, and at the request of other list members I also posted instructions for implementing the change. While the discussion of majordomo specifically is not entirely appropriate, discussion of 'who' commands in more generalized terms (like, "Why do users need a 'who' command?"), is. David. From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 10:58:00 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA01898; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 10:58:00 GMT Received: from osiris.ac.hmc.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id DAA01892; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 03:57:52 -0700 Received: (from jared@localhost) by osiris.ac.hmc.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.7) id DAA27512; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 03:58:19 -0700 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 03:58:19 -0700 Message-Id: <199404261058.DAA27512@osiris.ac.hmc.edu> From: Jared_Rhine@hmc.edu To: David Casti Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list membership security References: <199404260148.SAA28279@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> X-Attribution: Rhine Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk David> Hello? Have you read my messages at all? Hello? Oh, don't be a twit. You're talking to the author of the god-damn package. Tact should not be reserved for face-to-face encounters. The who command should clearly be enabled by default. Consider a mailing list as a conference; at what conferences that you've been to are everyone's faces covered by a paper bag? Why should I not have the right to know whom I'm addressing? Additionally, it is the only way for a user to divine the exact name under which they subscribed; if they can't find that information, there is no way for them to get off the list automatically. -- Jared Rhine Jared_Rhine@hmc.edu wibstr Harvey Mudd College http://www.hmc.edu/www/people/jared/home.html "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 11:11:58 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA01981; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 11:11:58 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA01975; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 04:11:50 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA07195; Tue, 26 Apr 94 07:08:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 06:59:45 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Reply-To: David Casti Subject: Re: list membership security To: Jared_Rhine@hmc.edu Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199404261058.DAA27512@osiris.ac.hmc.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > You're talking to the author of the god-damn package. That fact did not escape me. It also doesn't grant any special license to flat-out ignore what I wrote -- especially when responding to a message *from* me. > Why should I not have the right to know whom I'm addressing? I think you have a very expansive notion of what your "rights" are. I guess you don't post to newsgroups. > Additionally, it is the only way for a user to divine the exact name > under which they subscribed; if they can't find that information, > there is no way for them to get off the list automatically. We've already been over this point. Let's count the number of users who actually do this, versus those who just send mail to the listowner and expect them to take care of it. Do we need a show of hands? Maybe we can dissect some random samples of log files to see how often a 'who' is followed immediately by an 'unsubscribe' from the same user. David. From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 11:30:53 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA02053; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 11:30:53 GMT Received: from osiris.ac.hmc.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA02047; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 04:30:45 -0700 Received: (from jared@localhost) by osiris.ac.hmc.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.7) id EAA28552; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 04:31:14 -0700 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 04:31:14 -0700 Message-Id: <199404261131.EAA28552@osiris.ac.hmc.edu> From: Jared_Rhine@hmc.edu To: David Casti Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list membership security References: <199404261058.DAA27512@osiris.ac.hmc.edu> X-Attribution: Rhine Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rhine> Why should I not have the right to know whom I'm addressing? David> I think you have a very expansive notion of what your "rights" are. David> I guess you don't post to newsgroups. I consider a mailing list a community of people and act accordingly. David> Let's count the number of users who actually do this, versus those David> who just send mail to the listowner and expect them to take care of David> it. Heh, it's not my fault that you haven't educated your users properly. I have had no such problems. For me, the who will stay, just as for you, it will go. You've got what you wanted; is there any advantage whatsoever to berating the authors about your having to make a one-line change to the source? -- Jared Rhine Jared_Rhine@hmc.edu wibstr Harvey Mudd College http://www.hmc.edu/www/people/jared/home.html "Remember: Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend. " -- attributed to Jamie Zawinski From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 11:47:08 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA02093; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 11:47:08 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA02087; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 04:47:00 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA07296; Tue, 26 Apr 94 07:43:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 07:33:24 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Reply-To: David Casti Subject: Re: list membership security To: Jared_Rhine@hmc.edu Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199404261131.EAA28552@osiris.ac.hmc.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I have had no such problems. I'm sure. > You've got what you wanted; What is it you think I wanted? No -- don't bother the rest of the list with your answer; send it to me in email separately. I'd like to hear this... > is there any advantage whatsoever to berating the authors about your > having to make a one-line change to the source? As if there were any 'berating' going on here. Please consider reducing your emotional involvement in my messages. It's really not worth the investment. David. From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 12:36:54 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA02320; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 12:36:54 GMT Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA02313; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 05:36:43 -0700 Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA09437 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for greatcircle.com!list-managers); Tue, 26 Apr 1994 07:10:23 -0500 Received: by taronga.taronga.com (smail2.5) id AA03737; 26 Apr 94 07:07:51 CDT (Tue) Subject: Re: list membership security To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 26 Apr 94 7:07:50 CDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL16] Message-Id: <9404260707.AA03737@taronga.taronga.com> From: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Consider a mailing list as a conference; at what conferences that you've > been to are everyone's faces covered by a paper bag? Why should I not > have the right to know whom I'm addressing? One of my lists is sexually oriented, of a somwehat controversial nature (specifically people who are into sado-masochism). A lot of the members on my list would prefer that their identities not be known. Occasionally I'll get a request for someone to post their message anonymously. I don't think it's an unreasonable request, given the subject matter. -- Stephanie da Silva PO Box 720711 arielle@taronga.com Houston, TX 77272 Moderator, rec.food.recipes 713 568 0381 From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 12:49:13 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA02433; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 12:49:13 GMT Received: from z.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA02427; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 05:49:07 -0700 Received: from localhost (mmorse@localhost) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id IAA09034; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 08:49:30 -0400 Message-Id: <199404261249.IAA09034@z.nsf.gov> From: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 08:49:30 EDT In-Reply-To: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) "Re: list membership security" (Apr 26, 7:07am) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva), list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: list membership security Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > One of my lists is sexually oriented, of a somwehat controversial nature > (specifically people who are into sado-masochism). A lot of the members > on my list would prefer that their identities not be known. Occasionally > I'll get a request for someone to post their message anonymously. I don't > think it's an unreasonable request, given the subject matter. I thought they were all doing research projects. :-) :-) Seriously, folks that think that e-mail of this sort is private, or that there is any security in this, are really fooling themselves. How do they know they can trust you? There is neither the cultural or legal protections for e-mail that people assume for paper mail. I highly doubt there is much legal protection for a mailing list. --Mike From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 13:59:28 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA02726; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 13:59:28 GMT Received: from d.ecc.engr.uky.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id GAA02713; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 06:59:14 -0700 Received: from s.ecc.engr.uky.edu by d.ecc.engr.uky.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA22468; Tue, 26 Apr 94 09:55:02 EDT Received: by s.ecc.engr.uky.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17169; Tue, 26 Apr 94 09:53:29 EDT Date: Tue, 26 Apr 94 09:53:29 EDT From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Message-Id: <9404261353.AA17169@s.ecc.engr.uky.edu> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Lists as newsgroups Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From: jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) > >I must say that I disagree with the plan to feed mailing lists into >newsgroups. For a great many of the mailing lists out there, I think >that if the list maintainters /wanted/ a newsgroup, they would have >started one already. Most of the lists I know /like/ having some >control over the readers of their lists that is not given by a >newsgroup. Indeed; in fact, many of us started our lists in avoidance of Usenet's noise...I, for one, don't want my list treated as "another newsgroup." Our colleague from AOL mentioned, however, that he would be contacting list owners about their wishes for their lists. It would appear, there- fore, that he's more than willing to abide by the owner's wishes. This is a welcome sight in my eyes... I might not have a problem with seeing "starserver@aol.com" joining my list as an exploder; however, I have no desire to see my list delivered as "aol.starserver" or "maillists.starserver" within the Usenet frame- work. I get more than enough "what's this newsgroup for?" messages now; given the rather narrow focus of my list, I have no desire to see a flood of misplaced folk asking about the labyrinthine options of the ps command. --Wes From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 14:53:17 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA03078; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 14:53:17 GMT Received: from ifi.uio.no by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA03072; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 07:53:07 -0700 Received: from bera.ifi.uio.no (1232@bera.ifi.uio.no [129.240.80.3]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.8.1/ifi2.4) id for ; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 16:53:28 +0200 From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by bera.ifi.uio.no ; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 16:53:27 +0200 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 16:53:27 +0200 Message-Id: <199404261453.14362.bera.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: Wes Morgan's message of Tue, 26 Apr 94 09:53:29 EDT <9404261353.AA17169@s.ecc.engr.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Lists as newsgroups Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Here, people on voluminous mailing lists are asked whether they'd rather not create a newsgroup for it. Often, the subscriber asks them to do so from the outset. Our fa.*-hierarchy has been regarded so useful that many other sites in Norway carry it. Newsgroups have many nice features from a user's viewpoint, e.g., automatic foldering and expiration of old messages (we have 28 days currently). The newsgroups are one-way, mail->news only. I think this is a crucial aspect to keep maintenance efforts down. What's more, this solves the exact problem many of you have voiced ("what's this newsgroup for?"). Of course, this introduces the opposite problem - subscribers who don't realize that they need to send mail to particular address rather than just pressing followup. That is a local problem, though, and not very difficult to solve at that end. Kjetil T. From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 15:03:01 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA03142; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 15:03:01 GMT Received: from d.ecc.engr.uky.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA03136; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 08:02:44 -0700 Received: from s.ecc.engr.uky.edu by d.ecc.engr.uky.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA23571; Tue, 26 Apr 94 11:01:57 EDT Received: by s.ecc.engr.uky.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA19447; Tue, 26 Apr 94 11:00:35 EDT Date: Tue, 26 Apr 94 11:00:35 EDT From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Message-Id: <9404261500.AA19447@s.ecc.engr.uky.edu> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: lists as newsgroups Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [ Remember, folks, we aren't talking about propagation to the Usenet ] [ world here; if I read Dave's comments correctly, we're talking about ] [ the presentation of our lists as AOL local newsgroups, like (perhaps)] [ "aol.maillists.biglist-l" or "maillists.biglist" ] >From: pmdatropos@aol.com > >I'm surprised at the level of dislike evidenced by list owners -- I guess it >just goes to show that one should never assume what one sees as a solution >will be perceived as such by others. Indeed - much the same has been said about Emacs, perl, X.400.... 8) >I also get the impression that there is a misunderstanding about our ideas. >America Online is not going to simply move lists to our internal news >hierarchy without warning, nor are we trying to force list owners to >acquiesce. I'm glad to see this, since I have no desire to offer my lists in this fashion. >Providing access to a mailing list via our -local distribution- >newsgroups would (a) diminish the inbound flow of mail from lists with large >numbers of America Online subscribers and/or high traffic; (b) eliminate the >problem of users signing on, deciding they don't want the list, then signing >off (a large problem on human-administered lists); (c) eliminate the "no such >America Online member" messages; and (d) provide our subscribers with a >threaded interface to the mailing list traffic. (An aside: how many mailing lists would *really* benefit from threading?) (I rarely see a list trying to juggle more than 2 or 3 topics at once. ) Ah, but you should also consider the negatives: - Increased "what's this group about?" traffic - The general application of 'usenet style' to mailing lists. The big one I see is the "me too" messages... - Increase in off-topic nonsense. Many lists are quite specific; they should not, by their very topic, be made generally open. (My list, for admins of a particular computer system, is a prime example; I've already had my share of "how do I print" messages.) In fact, I now send a confirmation request to would-be sub- scribers, telling them that the list is rather technical. Your scheme would obliterate that. - The load on the list *host*. You mention that this will lighten your burden, but it may also greatly increase that of the list host itself. After all, we're talking about adding (poten- tially) thousands of participants in one fell swoop. I *certainly* wouldn't do this without the approval of the list owner. It doesn't seem that you plan to do so - for that, I am grateful. --Wes From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 15:19:50 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA03252; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 15:19:50 GMT Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA03246; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 08:19:40 -0700 Received: from localhost (pjg@localhost) by urth (8.6.8/8.6.4) with SMTP id LAA02947 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 11:20:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199404261520.LAA02947@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: urth.acsu.buffalo.edu: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list membership security In-reply-to: A message of "Tue, 26 Apr 1994 08:49:30 EDT." <199404261249.IAA09034@z.nsf.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 11:20:09 -0400 From: Paul Graham Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk indeed, if one really wants to help people be anonymous introducing them to remailers seems the way to go. i think there are times when you want public lists, private lists and what i call anonymous lists. it would seem that the next major release of majordomo will support this and i'm sure that listproc already does so. i believe there remains a sense of comity on many lists that is absent other vehicles (like newsgroups) and knowing who your fellow community members are is often a natural desire. it seems obvious to me that the correct solution is to support as many choices as are practical. as an example of that here's an exhibit of how something like this can be done rather trivially in a well known mailing list handler: *** majordomo.orig Wed Nov 24 00:41:59 1993 --- majordomo Wed Nov 24 00:47:59 1993 *************** *** 407,412 **** --- 407,416 ---- print REPLY "**** You aren't a member of list '$clean_list'.\n"; return 0; } + if (-e "$listdir/$clean_list.anon") { + print REPLY "**** 'who' is not permitted on $clean_list.\n"; + return 0; + } #open it up and tell who's on it print REPLY "Members of list '$clean_list':\n\n"; if (&lopen(LIST, "", "$listdir/$clean_list")) { -------- Previously on _listman law_: > A lot of the members > on my list would prefer that their identities not be known. Seriously, folks that think that e-mail of this sort is private, or that there is any security in this, are really fooling themselves. ------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 16:32:54 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA04335; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 16:32:54 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id DAA21588; Mon, 25 Apr 1994 03:49:46 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA19569; Mon, 25 Apr 94 06:47:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 06:43:37 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Subject: Re: aausers' need for majordomo "who" command To: Glee Willis Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9404250232.AA12934@shadow.scs.unr.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Glee, > What about when those of us Joe Users (who want to unsubscribe from a > majordomo list) need to check to see what our FQDN was when we subscribed > to it? Hmmm... Let's just say I have *never* seen this behavior on any of my lists, and my list-manager software logged all "who" requests. I would submit to you there are about three people on the entire Internet who behave as you suggest -- and none of those people appear to be on any of my lists. Besides, the privacy issues are more important to me than preventing perhaps one (and this is an optimistic estimate) user from checking their own FQDN before attempting to unsubscribe. David. From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 16:47:02 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA04599; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 16:47:02 GMT Received: from unixg.ubc.ca by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA04581; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 09:46:47 -0700 Received: by unixg.ubc.ca (4.1/1.14) id AA16765; Tue, 26 Apr 94 09:47:06 PDT Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 09:47:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Porter Subject: Re: list membership security To: Stephanie da Silva Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9404260707.AA03737@taronga.taronga.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 26 Apr 1994, Stephanie da Silva wrote: > One of my lists is sexually oriented, of a somwehat controversial nature > (specifically people who are into sado-masochism). A lot of the members > on my list would prefer that their identities not be known. Occasionally > I'll get a request for someone to post their message anonymously. I don't > think it's an unreasonable request, given the subject matter. Anonymity is assured through the use of anon servers. There several servers out there in cyberspace. Thus it is not necessary to disable who. If someone is unwilling to let their identitity be known, then they ought to be using the anaon servers to obtain an alias, and not burden the list administrator with their own problems. Unfortuneately there have been problems in the past with some of the anon servers handing out accounts to those making replies to anon-aliases, most notably the Finland anon server. This can cause a real mess, particularly if a large constituancy get nailed with an an account that isn't easily destroyed. In this sense, the anon servers can act like an unwelcome virus. The security of membership is a difficult issue. I don't allow anonymous aliases to my groups, nor do I allow the distribution of the list. I maintain a seperate directory of those who wish to "advertise" their presence. Because my lists are small (under 500 each), and the administration unautomated, I can afford this luxury. The problem comes home to roost once much of the administration is automated. There are no easy answers, and each list will want different degrees of protection for its members. richard. From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 10:10:30 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA04851; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 17:08:29 GMT Received: from news.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA04845; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 10:08:18 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by news.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.1) id AA04069; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 13:08:47 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA02741; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 13:08:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 13:08:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: list membership security To: Stephanie da Silva Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9404260707.AA03737@taronga.taronga.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I also do anonymous postings for the same reasons... -Sharon From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 10:20:30 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA04674; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 16:52:52 GMT Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA04663; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 09:52:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199404261652.JAA04663@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: David Casti cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list membership security Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 09:52:40 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'll explain this just once, and it's the last thing I'm going to say on the topic. Majordomo was originally conceived and written to support the SAGE working group mailing lists. SAGE is an organization created to promote system administration as a profession. When the organization was founded, the charter members (of which I was one) wanted 17 mailing lists for various working groups to discuss various topics (publicity for the organization, sponsoring conferences, sponsoring online activities, and so forth). The groups were expected to be small and to operate as sort of "online committees". I expected that the members of each working group would probably want to be able to find out who else was in the working group. Therefore, I included the "who" command. Clearly this is not appropriate for all mailing lists, but Majordomo was written SPECIFICLY to support the SAGE lists; the fact that I released it to the public was secondary and coincidental, and I sure regret it some days when I have to spend valuable time responding to crap like this. -Brent -- Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | Call or email for info about Brent@GreatCircle.COM | 1057 West Dana Street | upcoming Internet Security +1 415 962 0841 | Mountain View, CA 94041 | Firewalls Tutorial dates From list-managers-owner Tue Apr 26 10:20:36 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA04942; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 17:13:35 GMT Received: from news.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA04936; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 10:13:24 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by news.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.1) id AB04711; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 13:13:43 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA05027; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 13:13:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 13:13:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: list membership security To: "Michael H. Morse" Cc: Stephanie da Silva , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199404261249.IAA09034@z.nsf.gov> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > Seriously, folks that think that e-mail of this sort is private, or > that there is any security in this, are really fooling themselves. > How do they know they can trust you? There is neither the cultural or > legal protections for e-mail that people assume for paper mail. I > highly doubt there is much legal protection for a mailing list. > > --Mike > This does indeed require the trust of the list administrator. My list membership do trust me and benefit accordingly when I publish their stuff under my name. I go out of my way to keep their message on 'safe' machines and they know it. -Sharon From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 27 04:05:13 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA08961; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 04:05:13 GMT Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA08955; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 21:05:03 -0700 From: pmdatropos@aol.com Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA08140; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 00:05:38 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Message-Id: <9404260925.tn42545@aol.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 26 Apr 94 09:25:27 EDT Subject: Re: list membership security Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Stephanie da Silva wrote: [ quoting David Casti] >> Consider a mailing list as a conference; at what conferences that you've >> been to are everyone's faces covered by a paper bag? Why should I not >> have the right to know whom I'm addressing? >One of my lists is sexually oriented, of a somwehat controversial nature >(specifically people who are into sado-masochism). A lot of the members >on my list would prefer that their identities not be known. Occasionally >I'll get a request for someone to post their message anonymously. I don't >think it's an unreasonable request, given the subject matter. Likewise, the GLB-News list is set up to allow anyone to subscribe, but -not- to allow anyone but the list owner to determine the subscriber list. This allows unlimited access to the list without the risk of some unscrupulous person using the membership information. FWIW, LISTSERV's CONCEAL command/flag handles this situation quite nicely. __ David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com, atropos@aol.net) \/ System Administrator, America Online, Inc. Tel.: +1 703/556-3725 From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 27 10:51:32 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA14067; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 10:51:32 GMT Received: from ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id DAA14061; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 03:51:23 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 94 03:51:23 PDT Message-Id: <9404271051.AA13561@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov> Received: by zog.arc.nasa.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08941; Wed, 27 Apr 94 03:51:21 PDT From: k p c To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: who command (some general comments) In-Reply-To: <199404270810.BAA13014@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> References: <199404270810.BAA13014@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> Reply-To: kpc@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov X-Disclaimer: No organization, company, or government is represented here. X-Attribution: kpc Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk A few people have provided examples of why they want to disable the who command for their lists. I find it disturbing that people have felt the need to justify their providing minimal anonymity features. Perhaps they were only providing examples of a use they thought B.C. didn't anticipate, but there seemed to be a desire to show that it is justified against a normative anti-anonymous default. Anonymity (in this case, simply being able not to reveal ones membership) does not need to be justified! Feeling the need to justify anonymity is like feeling the need to justify free speech, or freedom of conscience or belief. In fact, these fundamental needs are closely linked. If, for example, you can be shot for being fingered as having said that Saddam is ugly, then anonymity is the only solution to the dilemma of choosing whether free speech or your life is more important. It's a vital measure of the freedom of a culture that it allow as high a level of anonymity as is practical in all of its communications media, mailing lists included. It's a matter of principle. If you have nothing to hide, you have every bit as much to lose as if you have something to hide. (Or more, because your dignity is at stake when your conscience is clean. When uncomprehending others attack you for the wrong reasons, you suffer something that you don't when it's for the right reasons, so in that sense you have even more to lose when you have nothing to hide. And also because you lose when somebody else does.) And it's just polite common sense. Many snail mail catalog companies will let you "set conceal", for example, because it matters to their customers. As an example, my list is a 100% scientific list, on which most people affirmatively want themselves known -- in fact, I hope to provide the ability for people to show their research interests. Yet I try, even if in a small way, to let those who don't want their membership known have their way by default. I'll probably go with listproc for that reason, though I guess majordomo can do it too. You won't hear people clamor for anonymity, not in an environment where people feel the need to justify it. So it needs to be built into the system. (With new technology, as a side note, it can be done without drawbacks; you can have accountability and anonymity at the same time, for example, with Chaumian cash (ref: Sci. Am. Sep. 1992.) Unfortunately, remailers are hardly a stable and convenient way to reply to a mailing list article today. So having a disableable who command, while not perfect, helps. But obviously if B.C. doesn't want to make the change, he doesn't have to. I hope somebody else does, however. And obviously you don't have to make your list provide anonymity if you don't want to. I'd just like to do away with the notion that there is something wrong with it, as if it's skulking in some way. 'Nuff said. No flames, please; I'm tired, this is my opinion, and we're here to discuss electronic mailing lists, not sociology. P.S. ma.jor.do.mo \.ma--j*r-'do--(.)mo-\ n or majordomos [Sp mayordomo or obs. It mairodomo, fr. ML major domus, lit.,] pl chief of the house 1: a man having charge of a great household : a head steward 2: BUTLER, STEWARD So we're stewards; maybe there is something in that. Partial stewards of the community, with a responsibility toward it. P.P.S. There are those who feel disturbed by the very notion of anonymity. I am not trying to reach them, and I beg them not to flame; please, we know you exist, we know it!, and please, don't flame. Please!. I am instead trying to reach only those who have a glimmer of what I am saying, on principle and just WRT our roles as mailing list administrators. From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 27 13:45:21 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA14901; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 13:45:21 GMT Received: from sunshine.eushc.org by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id GAA14895; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 06:45:12 -0700 Received: from knex.UUCP (root@localhost) by sunshine.eushc.org (8.6.8.1/EUSHC) with UUCP id JAA02291; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 09:45:38 -0400 Received: by mind.org (8.6.8.1/MIND.ORG) with UUCP id IAA01491; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 08:56:28 -0400 Received: by knex.mind.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Wed, 27 Apr 94 08:36:33 EST for list-managers@greatcircle.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: who command (some general comments) From: Gess Shankar Reply-To: gess@knex.mind.org (Gess Shankar) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Apr 94 08:30:25 EDT In-Reply-To: <9404271051.AA13561@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov> Organization: |<><>| Knowledge Exchange, GA, USA |<><>| Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk k p c writes: [snip snip a lot of snips] > P.S. > > ma.jor.do.mo \.ma--j*r-'do--(.)mo-\ n or majordomos [Sp mayordomo or obs. > It mairodomo, fr. ML major domus, lit.,] pl chief of the house 1: a man > having charge of a great household : a head steward 2: BUTLER, STEWARD > > So we're stewards; maybe there is something in that. Partial stewards > of the community, with a responsibility toward it. > I'd like to think that Brent Chapman chose the name to stand the second meaning i.e. butler, or a gentleman's gentleman. A Jeeves may be, but nevertheless a butler. :) As such we are employers of majordomo and do purport to 'steward' anything. Said in jest. Ignore the whole thing. :) GeSS -- Gess Shankar |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.mind.ORG |<><>| Knowledge Exchange|<><>|:::::::::::::::::::::::::|<><>| From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 27 15:54:47 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA17471; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 15:54:47 GMT Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA17464; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 08:54:40 -0700 Message-Id: <199404271554.IAA17464@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: kpc@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: who command (some general comments) In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 27 Apr 94 03:51:23 PDT Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 08:54:37 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk k p c writes: # But obviously if B.C. doesn't want to make the change, he doesn't have # to. I hope somebody else does, however. I'm not the one you have to convince; I don't play any significant part in the development of Majordomo any more. Most of the work being done on Majordomo these days is being coordinated by John Rouillard (rouilj@cs.umb.edu). I have nothing against anonymity; if folks want to be anonymous on my lists, they're welcome to subscribe through aliases. I'm not going to go out of my way to accomodate them. You make a long argument about the societal value of anonymity. I think an equally good argument could be made about non-anonymity; that as a culture (in the U.S., at least), most people want to know who they're dealing with. The right balance between those two is going to be different for every list. John Rouillard is already working on plans for Majordomo to support policies for who can use the "who" command on a Majordomo-managed list (i.e., "anybody", "nobody", "only the list owner", or "anybody who knows a magic 'who' password for the list"). -Brent -- Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | Call or email for info about Brent@GreatCircle.COM | 1057 West Dana Street | upcoming Internet Security +1 415 962 0841 | Mountain View, CA 94041 | Firewalls Tutorial dates From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 27 19:00:58 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA25899; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 19:00:58 GMT Received: from CVI.HAHNEMANN.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA25893; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 12:00:48 -0700 Received: by cvi.hahnemann.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 23285; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 14:41:43 EDT Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 14:41:40 EDT From: "Anthony J. Rzepela" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Message-ID: <0097D963.FFD5CB20.23285@cvi.hahnemann.edu> Subject: How DOES one know when an AOL user is booted and should be removed? Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In examining the files in my outgoing mail queue, resulting from a mailing list message, I discovered a rather interesting phenomenon: If a subscriber's account is removed from AOL, but has not been deleted from our list, the result of a mailing from the list is that Postmaster@aol.com tries to send an informative message to list-submitter's-uname@list's.site.edu \---------------------/ \ / \ / \ Since this name does not exist at our site, our mailer sends, to the postmaster@sending site (in this case, the working postmaster@AOL.COM) notification of such, as it would for any badly spelled email user name. Downside to all of this, of course, is that the listadmin never sees any reason to delete former AOL users who never unsubscribed, since email never comes HERE to our postmaster saying 'so-and-so is no longer on our machine. Please delete from your mailing list.' Our outgoing mailer queue, then, gets to process additional mail for all removed AOL accounts. FUN! Anyone else seen this? There is an AOL guy here, right? I think your postmaster would see less 'no such user' email if your software didn't try to append the lists' home site names to the senders' user names. +--------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------+ |Tony Rzepela || | +--------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------+ From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 27 19:20:12 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA26024; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 19:20:12 GMT Received: from ncar.UCAR.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA26018; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 12:20:03 -0700 Received: from niwot.scd.ucar.EDU by ncar.ucar.EDU (8.6.5/ NCAR Central Post Office 03/11/93) id NAA23137; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 13:20:36 -0600 Message-Id: <199404271920.NAA19867@niwot.scd.ucar.EDU> Received: from localhost by niwot.scd.ucar.EDU (8.6.5/ NCAR Mail Server 04/10/90) id NAA19867; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 13:20:35 -0600 Subject: digestification software? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 27 Apr 94 13:20:34 MDT From: era@ucar.edu (Ed Arnold) Reply-To: era@ucar.edu (Ed Arnold) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, Wonder if someone out there could tell me where I can find Perl scripts for doing digestification with majordomo. The net is kinda slow and I've given up on trying to examine archives from ftp.greatcircle.com. Thanks in advance, -- Ed Arnold * NCAR * POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000 * 303-497-1253(voice) 303-497-{1298,1814}(fax) * internet: era@ucar.edu * bitnet: era@ncario compuserve: internet:era@ucar.edu From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 27 19:37:08 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA26171; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 19:37:08 GMT Received: from skigo.graphics.cornell.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA26161; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 12:36:34 -0700 Received: by skigo.graphics.cornell.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00403; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 15:36:22 -0400 Message-Id: <9404271936.AA00403@skigo.graphics.cornell.edu> To: "Anthony J. Rzepela" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: How DOES one know when an AOL user is booted and should be removed? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Apr 94 14:41:40 EDT." <0097D963.FFD5CB20.23285@cvi.hahnemann.edu> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 94 15:36:21 -0400 From: Mitch Collinsworth X-Mts: smtp Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >If a subscriber's account is removed from AOL, but has >not been deleted from our list, the result of a mailing from >the list is that Postmaster@aol.com tries to send an >informative message to > > list-submitter's-uname@list's.site.edu [...] > Anyone else seen this? I haven't, and I have had a handful of aol addresses start bouncing mail over the last few weeks. The bounces were all addressed appropriately. -Mitch From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 27 19:56:05 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA26325; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 19:56:05 GMT Received: from rara.ossi.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA26318; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 12:55:54 -0700 Received: from foucault.ossi.com (foucault.ossi.com [192.240.4.2]) by rara.ossi.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA10163; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 12:55:51 -0700 Received: (from cds@localhost) by foucault.ossi.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id MAA04041; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 12:55:50 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 12:55:50 -0700 From: Chris Seabrook Message-Id: <199404271955.MAA04041@foucault.ossi.com> In-Reply-To: rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu's message <0097D963.FFD5CB20.23285@cvi.hahnemann.edu> of Apr 27, 14:41 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: "Anthony J. Rzepela" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: How DOES one know when an AOL user is booted and should be removed? Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk --- begin included message from "Anthony J. Rzepela" > If a subscriber's account is removed from AOL, but has > not been deleted from our list, the result of a mailing from > the list is that Postmaster@aol.com tries to send an > informative message to > > list-submitter's-uname@list's.site.edu > \---------------------/ > \ / > \ / > \ Since this name does not exist at our site, > our mailer sends, to the postmaster@sending site > (in this case, the working postmaster@AOL.COM) > notification of such, as it would for any badly > spelled email user name. --- end included message My lists have Sender: and From fields set correctly to the list-owner address and I have been getting no such user notices from aol.com OK. They come to me as the list-owner. --Chris From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 27 20:12:22 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA26498; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 20:12:22 GMT Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA26487; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 13:12:00 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id QAA00763; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 16:11:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199404272011.QAA00763@wilma.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: Chris Seabrook cc: "Anthony J. Rzepela" , list-managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: How DOES one know when an AOL user is booted and should be removed? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 27 Apr 1994 12:55:50 PDT." <199404271955.MAA04041@foucault.ossi.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 16:11:26 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > My lists have Sender: and From fields set correctly to the list-owner > address and I have been getting no such user notices from aol.com OK. > They come to me as the list-owner. This is a common misconception. Neither the Sender header field, nor the >From header field, nor the From_ line at the beginning of a message (since the latter isn't specified by the originator) has anything to do with where nondelivery reports go. (It may be that you are also setting the envelope return address correctly, but you didn't say so.) Keith Moore From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 27 20:34:31 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA26736; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 20:34:31 GMT Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA26728; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 13:34:24 -0700 Message-Id: <199404272034.NAA26728@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: era@ucar.edu (Ed Arnold) cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: digestification software? In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 27 Apr 94 13:20:34 MDT Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 13:34:22 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk era@ucar.edu (Ed Arnold) writes: # Hi, # # Wonder if someone out there could tell me where I can find Perl # scripts for doing digestification with majordomo. # # The net is kinda slow and I've given up on trying to examine archives # from ftp.greatcircle.com. Thanks in advance, # # -- # Ed Arnold * NCAR * POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000 * 303-497-1253(voice) # 303-497-{1298,1814}(fax) * internet: era@ucar.edu * bitnet: era@ncario # compuserve: internet:era@ucar.edu ftp.greatcircle.com:pub/list-managers/tools/digest.shar This package will be bundled in to a near-future release of Majordomo (I'm not sure if it's the one currently in beta, or the one after that; I'm not the active developer of Majordomo any more, John Rouillard is). -Brent -- Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | Call or email for info about Brent@GreatCircle.COM | 1057 West Dana Street | upcoming Internet Security +1 415 962 0841 | Mountain View, CA 94041 | Firewalls Tutorial dates From list-managers-owner Wed Apr 27 20:37:59 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA26794; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 20:37:59 GMT Received: from cs.umb.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA26788; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 13:37:50 -0700 Received: from terminus.cs.umb.edu by cs.umb.edu with SMTP id AA18090 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Wed, 27 Apr 1994 16:38:20 -0400 Message-Id: <199404272038.AA18090@cs.umb.edu> To: Brent Chapman Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: digestification software? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Apr 1994 13:34:22 PDT." <199404272034.NAA26728@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 16:38:19 -0400 From: "John P. Rouillard" Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk The one currently in beta has it. In message <199404272034.NAA26728@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM>, Brent Chapman writes : > era@ucar.edu (Ed Arnold) writes: > > # Hi, > # > # Wonder if someone out there could tell me where I can find Perl > # scripts for doing digestification with majordomo. > # > # The net is kinda slow and I've given up on trying to examine arch > ives > # from ftp.greatcircle.com. Thanks in advance, > # > # -- > # Ed Arnold * NCAR * POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000 * 303-497-125 > 3(voice) > # 303-497-{1298,1814}(fax) * internet: era@ucar.edu * bitnet: era@n > cario > # compuserve: internet:era@ucar.edu > > ftp.greatcircle.com:pub/list-managers/tools/digest.shar > > This package will be bundled in to a near-future release of Majordo > mo > (I'm not sure if it's the one currently in beta, or the one after > that; I'm not the active developer of Majordomo any more, John > Rouillard is). > > -Brent > -- > Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | Call or email fo > r info about > Brent@GreatCircle.COM | 1057 West Dana Street | upcoming Interne > t Security > +1 415 962 0841 | Mountain View, CA 94041 | Firewalls Tutori > al dates -- John John Rouillard Special Projects Volunteer University of Massachusetts at Boston rouilj@cs.umb.edu (preferred) Boston, MA, (617) 287-6480 =============================================================================== My employers don't acknowledge my existence much less my opinions. From list-managers-owner Thu Apr 28 09:41:02 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA12031; Thu, 28 Apr 1994 16:34:49 GMT Received: from mailgate.prod.aol.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA12024; Thu, 28 Apr 1994 09:34:30 -0700 From: pmdatropos@aol.com Received: by mailgate.prod.aol.net (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA06655; Thu, 28 Apr 94 12:31:35 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Message-Id: <9404281231.tn90299@aol.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 28 Apr 94 12:31:33 EDT Subject: Re: How DOES one know when... Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu wrote: [ ... ] >If a subscriber's account is removed from AOL, but has >not been deleted from our list, the result of a mailing from >the list is that Postmaster@aol.com tries to send an >informative message to > list-submitter's-uname@list's.site.edu > \---------------------/ > \ / > \ / > \ Since this name does not exist at our site, >our mailer sends, to the postmaster@sending site >(in this case, the working postmaster@AOL.COM) >notification of such, as it would for any badly >spelled email user name. [ ... ] You have identified a problem which affects some mailing lists and not others, and I appreciate your pointing it out. I've sent the entire article to our mail system programmers, who acknowledged the bug and are working on fixes. __ David B. O'Donnell (PMDAtropos@aol.com, atropos@aol.net) \/ System Administrator, America Online, Inc. Tel.: +1 703/556-3725 From list-managers-owner Thu Apr 28 10:50:58 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA17961; Thu, 28 Apr 1994 17:41:48 GMT Received: from post.demon.co.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA17955; Thu, 28 Apr 1994 10:41:25 -0700 Received: from stonewall.demon.co.uk by post.demon.co.uk id ab09268; 28 Apr 94 17:38 GMT-60:00 From: Nigel Whitfield Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 09:43:23 BST In-Reply-To: List-Managers-Digest-Owner@greatcircle.com's message 'List Managers Digest V3 #79' of Thu 28 Apr Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List Managers Digest V3 #79 Message-ID: <9404280943.aa19526@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: Keith Moore > Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 16:11:26 -0400 > Subject: Re: How DOES one know when an AOL user is booted and should be removed? [..] > This is a common misconception. Neither the Sender header field, nor the > From header field, nor the From_ line at the beginning of a message (since > the latter isn't specified by the originator) has anything to do with where > nondelivery reports go. In theory. I've found that's certainly not the case with a lot of the mailers that I come across in the UK (particularly on some of the stranger JANet systems, though some commercial providers are broken). I set envelope, From_ and Errors-To to point back to uk-motss-request, and some systems still insist on trying to send error reports to the list. Nigel -- [Nigel Whitfield nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk] [For details on the uk-motss mailing list mail uk-motss-request@pyra.co.uk] [***** All demon.co.uk sites are independently run internet hosts *****] From list-managers-owner Thu Apr 28 18:17:46 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA18575; Thu, 28 Apr 1994 18:17:46 GMT Received: from thud.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA18569; Thu, 28 Apr 1994 11:17:15 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST.cs.utk.edu by thud.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id OAA01264; Thu, 28 Apr 1994 14:17:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199404281817.OAA01264@thud.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: Nigel Whitfield cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: List Managers Digest V3 #79 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 28 Apr 1994 09:43:23 -0000." <9404280943.aa19526@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 14:16:56 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > In theory. I've found that's certainly not the case with a lot of the > mailers that I come across in the UK (particularly on some of the > stranger JANet systems, though some commercial providers are broken). > > I set envelope, From_ and Errors-To to point back to uk-motss-request, > and some systems still insist on trying to send error reports to the > list. Hmmm. My lists don't have this problem, though the original sender does sometimes get bounced mail. I set envelope and Errors-To (just for good measure), and generally leave other headers alone. Do your lists change the From header field? Keith From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 29 12:51:29 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA10080; Fri, 29 Apr 1994 12:51:29 GMT Received: from z.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA10073; Fri, 29 Apr 1994 05:51:08 -0700 Received: from localhost (mmorse@localhost) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id IAA11244; Fri, 29 Apr 1994 08:51:11 -0400 Message-Id: <199404291251.IAA11244@z.nsf.gov> From: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 08:51:11 EDT In-Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield "Re: List Managers Digest V3 #79" (Apr 28, 9:43am) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: Nigel Whitfield , List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List Managers Digest V3 #79 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I set envelope, From_ and Errors-To to point back to uk-motss-request, > and some systems still insist on trying to send error reports to the > list. Now *I'm* confused. I thought the From_ line *was* the envelope from. --Mike From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 29 16:26:36 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA11785; Fri, 29 Apr 1994 16:26:36 GMT Received: from intercon.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA11779; Fri, 29 Apr 1994 09:26:27 -0700 Received: from localhost by intercon.com (Sendmail 8.6.5/940209.RS) id MAA24836; Fri, 29 Apr 1994 12:27:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 12:27:01 -0400 From: jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) Message-Id: <199404291627.MAA24836@intercon.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: New IETF Draft... Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I think (I haven't read it yet) this might be of interest to everyone here... ------ Sender: ietf-announce-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Internet-Drafts@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-rare-msg-c-bombs-01.txt Date: Fri, 29 Apr 94 11:06:48 -0400 --NextPart A Revised Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Mail and Messaging Working Group of RARE. Title : Bombs series: Behaviour of Mail Based Servers Part 1: C-bombs Classification of Breeds of Mail Based Servers Author(s) : J. Houttuin Filename : draft-rare-msg-c-bombs-01.txt Pages : 12 Date : 04/28/1994 This document defines a classification of Mail Based Servers (MBSs) according to their behaviour towards their users. The most important distinction is between mail responders (e.g. echo servers, file servers) and mail forwarders (e.g. mailing lists, auto-forwarders). The document aims at a common understanding of these MBS classes and other common MBS attributes, such as roles (administrators, owners), MBS lifetime and restricted MBS use. Internet-Drafts are available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and password "guest". After logging in, Type "cd internet-drafts". "get draft-rare-msg-c-bombs-01.txt". Internet-Drafts directories are located at: o US East Coast Address: ds.internic.net (198.49.45.10) o US West Coast Address: ftp.isi.edu (128.9.0.32) o Pacific Rim Address: munnari.oz.au (128.250.1.21) o Europe Address: nic.nordu.net (192.36.148.17) Internet-Drafts are also available by mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ds.internic.net. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-rare-msg-c-bombs-01.txt". For questions, please mail to Internet-Drafts@cnri.reston.va.us. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ds.internic.net" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19940428115046.I-D@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> FILE /internet-drafts/draft-rare-msg-c-bombs-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-rare-msg-c-bombs-01.txt"; site="ds.internic.net"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19940428115046.I-D@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 29 20:53:13 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id UAA18234; Fri, 29 Apr 1994 20:53:13 GMT Received: from post.demon.co.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA18228; Fri, 29 Apr 1994 13:53:02 -0700 Received: from stonewall.demon.co.uk by post.demon.co.uk id aa04767; 29 Apr 94 21:38 GMT-60:00 From: Nigel Whitfield Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 19:52:36 BST In-Reply-To: List-Managers-Digest-Owner@greatcircle.com's message 'List Managers Digest V3 #80' of Fri 29 Apr Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Error returns and list security Message-ID: <9404291952.aa27067@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: Keith Moore > Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 14:16:56 -0400 > Subject: Re: List Managers Digest V3 #79 > [..] > Hmmm. My lists don't have this problem, though the original sender does > sometimes get bounced mail. I set envelope and Errors-To (just for good > measure), and generally leave other headers alone. > > Do your lists change the From header field? Yes. The From: and Reply-To: fields point to the list, with envelope and Errors-To pointing to the list-request address. I can cope with the small volume of things that are sent back to the list, since the software won't authorise them for sending anyway, but it's annoying that some mail systems won't recognise the envelope or Errors-To fields. The reason, incidentally, that we re-write the From: field is to prevent people receiving error messages that might indicate who else is on the list. We also strip out Return-Receipt-To and Acknowledge-To. I don't think there's anything else that can be done to keep membership more secure. Nigel. -- [Nigel Whitfield nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk] [For details on the uk-motss mailing list mail uk-motss-request@pyra.co.uk] [***** All demon.co.uk sites are independently run internet hosts *****] From list-managers-owner Fri Apr 29 17:11:48 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id AAA04106; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 00:00:04 GMT Received: from remarque.berkeley.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA04091; Fri, 29 Apr 1994 16:59:49 -0700 Received: by remarque.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.31) id RAA21596; Fri, 29 Apr 1994 17:00:20 -0700 Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 17:00:20 -0700 From: mcb@remarque.berkeley.edu (Michael C. Berch) Message-Id: <199404300000.RAA21596@remarque.berkeley.edu> To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: who command (some general comments) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk kpc@ptolemy-ethernet.arc.nasa.gov writes: > A few people have provided examples of why they want to disable the > who command for their lists. > > I find it disturbing that people have felt the need to justify their > providing minimal anonymity features. Perhaps they were only > providing examples of a use they thought B.C. didn't anticipate, but > there seemed to be a desire to show that it is justified against a > normative anti-anonymous default. > > Anonymity (in this case, simply being able not to reveal ones > membership) does not need to be justified! [...] I think you have missed the point of the comments about anonymity on this list. I suppose there are a few people against the concept of anonymity or pseudonymity (on the net) _per se_, but the real issues are whether (1) anonymity should be provided as a feature of mailing list server software, and even if so, (2) whether it is good sense to rely on something as breakable as (for example) disabling the majordomo "who" command for secure privacy on a mailing list. I don't have any problem with anonymous or pseudonymous posters to my lists, but I don't believe that it is the duty of the list manager (either personally, or through the instrumentality of list server software) to provide the service, especially where doing so removes the valuable ability of other list members to see who they are talking to. If people seek privacy or anonymity -- which I value and endorse as a part of Internet culture -- there are a number of alternatives ranging from the anon.penet.fi server to the Cypherpunk remailers to having a friend forward your mail which will accomplish what is desired. What I *do* worry about is the folly of list managers who think that they have secured their list membership by turning off a command in their list server software, represented their list as private, and were unaware that their lists could trivially be expanded by something like SMTP EXPN or looking at the mail queue on the server site. Rather than suffer the red face (or worse -- don't kid yourself, there will be a lawsuit sooner or later) of explaining this to someone who was "outed" this way, I think the best policy is to tell subscribers that they should assume that the list membership is NOT secret (whether or not it is easily discoverable) and that if they require privacy or anonymity they should provide it by using an intermediate address (I will gladly forward the anon.penet.fi and Cypherpunks remailer help files). -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@net.bio.net / mcb@remarque.berkeley.edu From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 30 03:41:54 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA09418; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 08:41:22 GMT Received: from ifi.uio.no by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id BAA09409; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 01:41:12 -0700 Received: from bera.ifi.uio.no (1232@bera.ifi.uio.no [129.240.80.3]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.8.1/ifi2.4) id for ; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 10:41:43 +0200 From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by bera.ifi.uio.no ; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 10:41:42 +0200 Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 10:41:42 +0200 Message-Id: <199404300841.4823.bera.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: Nigel Whitfield's message of Fri, 29 Apr 1994 19:52:36 BST <9404291952.aa27067@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> Subject: Rewriting headers (Was: Error returns and list security) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk +--- Nigel Whitfield: | The From: and Reply-To: fields point to the list, with envelope and | Errors-To pointing to the list-request address. That sounds like a pain. Which header contains the name of the sender? Hopefully not Sender :-) Why so much magic? I feel the "standard" Unix way works very well, that is: >From owner-mailing-list From: author Sender: mailing-list-request To: mailing-list I am on a list where every recipient gets mail addressed directly to himself, I find that highly confusing. Automatic Reply-To-headers pointing to the author or mailing list are redundant, they just attempt to force your users into doing just followup or just reply. Leave that choice to them. Which headers you add or remove is another topic. +--- | The reason, incidentally, that we re-write the From: field is to | prevent people receiving error messages that might indicate who else | is on the list. That reason is just too bizarre, sorry :-) Well, your list members bring the hassle upon themselves, then. I must say I agree with Mr. Berch - using anon.penet.fi or similar is the better solution when you need anonymity. Kjetil T. (speaking as a user rather than an admin) From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 30 16:06:53 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA10871; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 16:06:53 GMT Received: from thud.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA10865; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 09:06:43 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST.cs.utk.edu by thud.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id MAA03150; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 12:07:12 -0400 Message-Id: <199404301607.MAA03150@thud.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: Kjetil Torgrim Homme cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Rewriting headers (Was: Error returns and list security) In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 30 Apr 1994 10:41:42 +0200." <199404300841.4823.bera.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 12:07:07 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Why so much magic? I feel the "standard" Unix way works very well, that is: > > From owner-mailing-list > From: author > Sender: mailing-list-request > To: mailing-list I can't tell from your description whether the mailing list expander is expected to rewrite the To header field. If it does, it prevents multiple lists from participating in a conversation. If it does not, it breaks for those cases when the list address doesn't appear in the To header. (this can happen when a "local" list address is used and the mail is forwarded to the main list; the "local" address might not be accessible by everyone.) Also, it's not at all clear that Sender should be rewritten to point to the list maintainer. I would prefer that it retain its original meaning of "the person on whose behalf the message is sent" > I am on a list where every recipient gets mail addressed directly to > himself, I find that highly confusing. agreed. I find that confusing also. > Automatic Reply-To-headers > pointing to the author or mailing list are redundant, they just > attempt to force your users into doing just followup or just > reply. Leave that choice to them. In general I agree, except that the address isn't always in the To header. > +--- > | The reason, incidentally, that we re-write the From: field is to > | prevent people receiving error messages that might indicate who else > | is on the list. > > That reason is just too bizarre, sorry :-) Well, your list members > bring the hassle upon themselves, then. I must say I agree with > Mr. Berch - using anon.penet.fi or similar is the better solution when > you need anonymity. Actually, I think this is a perfectly good reason to rewrite the From header field. In general, From should not be rewritten, but sometimes there are legitimate reasons. Depending on how far you take this approach, it ends up having about the same effect as going through anon.penet.fi anyway, without the extra overhead, and without trusting another machine to keep your identity a secret. My main point is that the "standard" behavior is neither without its problems, nor does it apply to all cases. And of course there is really no "standard" behavior. I'd like to collect some information about common header rewriting practices for mailing lists, along with the rationale for each change, how well it works in practice, and what the negative effects are. Maybe that information could be used to promote some behavior as "standard" or "default" for list expanders, and still allow for some deviation from this for exceptional conditions. Keith Moore From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 30 21:49:43 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA00539; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 21:49:43 GMT Received: from ipcit1.canadair.ca by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA00533; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 14:49:31 -0700 Received: from moosehead.eng.canadair.ca by ipcit1.canadair.ca with SMTP id AA19834 (5.65+/IDA-1.3.5 for List-Managers@greatcircle.com); Sat, 30 Apr 94 17:46:35 -0400 Received: from localhost by moosehead.eng.canadair.ca with SMTP id AA09150 (5.65+/IDA-1.3.5 for List-Managers@greatcircle.com); Sat, 30 Apr 94 17:40:50 -0400 Message-Id: <9404302140.AA09150@moosehead.eng.canadair.ca> To: Keith Moore Cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Rewriting headers (Was: Error returns and list security) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 30 Apr 94 12:07:07 EDT." <199404301607.MAA03150@thud.cs.utk.edu> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 94 17:40:50 -0400 From: "Marc P. Rinfret" Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: Keith Moore > To: Kjetil Torgrim Homme > Cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu > Subject: Re: Rewriting headers (Was: Error returns and list security) > In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 30 Apr 1994 10:41:42 +0200." > <199404300841.4823.bera.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> > Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 12:07:07 -0400 > Sender: List-Managers-Owner@greatcircle.com > Precedence: bulk > > > Why so much magic? I feel the "standard" Unix way works very well, that is: > > > > From owner-mailing-list > > From: author > > Sender: mailing-list-request > > To: mailing-list > > I can't tell from your description whether the mailing list expander > is expected to rewrite the To header field. If it does, it prevents > multiple lists from participating in a conversation. If it does not, > it breaks for those cases when the list address doesn't appear in the > To header. (this can happen when a "local" list address is used and > the mail is forwarded to the main list; the "local" address might not > be accessible by everyone.) The "To:" (and "Cc:") should not be modified > Also, it's not at all clear that Sender should be rewritten to > point to the list maintainer. I would prefer that it retain its > original meaning of "the person on whose behalf the message is sent" > Humm. I disagree the "Sender" is the entity which actually "sends" the message. It is sent by "Sender" on behalf of who the message is "From". This is described in RFC822 (Section 4.4). Look it up. There are also some examples in Appendix A.2. Marc. From list-managers-owner Sat Apr 30 23:05:58 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA00694; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 23:05:58 GMT Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA00688; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 16:05:51 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id TAA11268; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 19:04:36 -0400 Message-Id: <199404302304.TAA11268@wilma.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: "Marc P. Rinfret" cc: Keith Moore , List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Rewriting headers (Was: Error returns and list security) In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 30 Apr 1994 17:40:50 EDT." <9404302140.AA09150@moosehead.eng.canadair.ca> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 19:04:35 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > Also, it's not at all clear that Sender should be rewritten to > > point to the list maintainer. I would prefer that it retain its > > original meaning of "the person on whose behalf the message is sent" > > > Humm. I disagree the "Sender" is the entity which actually "sends" the > message. It is sent by "Sender" on behalf of who the message is "From". You're right of course. I stated it backwards. What I meant to say is that I don't think lists should scribble over the sender header, because it might be useful to know who actually originated the message. (I know 822 by heart, really I do ;-) Keith