[Mailman-Users] Case-Sensitivity Problem?

[Mark Sapiro]

Ryan Steele wrote:

>Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> Ryan Steele wrote:
>>   
>>> Here is an excerpt from the mail header:
>>>
>>>     
>>>> Received: from FOO at aol.com
>>>>         by imo-m26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.6.) id e.cef.43ab224 (57293);
>>>>         Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:41:44 -0500 (EST)
>>>> From: FOO at aol.com
>>>> Message-ID: <cef.43ab224.32b16b26 at aol.com>
>>>> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:41:42 EST
>>>>       
>>> And here is a message from Mailman's bounce log:
>>>
>>>     
>>>> Dec 13 09:42:38 2006 (2202) bounce message w/no discernable addresses: 
>>>>       
>>> <cef.43ab224.32b16b26 at aol.com>


This is the Message-Id: of the 'bounce' message, not an address.

     
>>>> Dec 13 09:42:38 2006 (2202) forwarding unrecognized, message-id: 
>>>>       
>>> <cef.43ab224.32b16b26 at aol.com>


ditto.


>>> For whatever reason, Mailman treated the message-id that AOL gave it as 
>>> the sender address...thus causing the "Uncaught bounce notification" 
>>> error.


No. That is not what is happening. The message with Message-Id:
<cef.43ab224.32b16b26 at aol.com> was piped to Mailman's mail wrapper for
the 'bounces' address of the Igcpgrads list. Assuming your aliases or
whatever the incoming MTA uses to deliver to mailman are in order,
this means the message was delivered to the Igcpgrads-bounces address.

If you would like to see this in action, send an ordinary email to the
Igcpgrads-bounces address. The owner will receive the same
unrecognized bounce notice and antries like the above will be in the
bounce log.


>>> The actual bounce occurred because it was sent for moderator 
>>> approval due to the large number of recipients:
>>>     
>>
>>
>> No. The 'bounce' occurred because one of the recipients was the
>> Igcpgrads-bounces address.


There was no real bounce. The message was delivered to both the
Igcpgrads posting address and the Igcpgrads-bounces address. The
'post' was held for too many recipients, and the 'bounce' was
unrecognized as a delivery status notification and was treated as any
unrecognized bounce.

Two separate mail deliveries; two separate actions.

 
>The original recipients list did not include the Igcpgrads-bounces 
>address; I can confirm this.


Which original recipients list? You can't confirm this from any message
headers. The only way you could confirm where the message was or
wasn't delivered is from your MTA logs. Perhaps the Igcpgrads-bounces
address was a Bcc: in the original message.

Was the original post a reply to another post? If so, perhaps the
poster's MUA added the Sender: of the original to the recipient list
of the reply. See
<http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq02.003.htp>
for some additional information.


>> And the message was held because the number of explicit addresses in
>> To: and Cc: of the message was greater than or equal to Privacy
>> options...->Recipient filters->max_num_recipients.
>>
>>   
>Yes, I realize this.  But, there's no reason for the log to indicate 
>that <cef.43ab224.32b16b26 at aol.com>
>was being considered as an indiscernable address.  It ought to have been 
>able to extrapolate the real AOL address of the sender, don't you think?


Nowhere does any log entry you have provided say that
<cef.43ab224.32b16b26 at aol.com> is an indiscernable address. The
entries in the bounce log say that a message with Message-Id:
<cef.43ab224.32b16b26 at aol.com> was received by bounce processing and
that bounce processing could not recognize the body of that message as
a bounce with discernable addresses - not surprising as the body of
the message was a list post, not a DSN.

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