
I am running a very small, un-moderated list for the internal staff of my company. It is basically set up to allow non-members (job seekers) to post messages (resumes) to list members (HR).
Every couple of days I will get notification that a message requires administrative review. The reason given is:
Reason: Message has implicit destination
I can't seem to figure out what is going on. I have looked through the message excerpt on each to find a common thread, but no luck.
Thanks
=Doug=
The box said "Requires Windows 95 or better". So I loaded LINUX.

"Douglas Munoz" <dmunoz@meyersgroup.com> writes:
| I am running a very small, un-moderated list for the internal staff of my | company. It is basically set up to allow non-members (job seekers) to post | messages (resumes) to list members (HR). | | Every couple of days I will get notification that a message requires | administrative review. The reason given is: | | Reason: Message has implicit destination | | I can't seem to figure out what is going on. I have looked through the | message excerpt on each to find a common thread, but no luck.
When I saw this it was because of an To: header like this:
To: Friends <addr1; addr2; addr3; addr4; ... >
Where one of the addr's was the mailinglis address.
Hmm...perhaps there should be a "Don't warn on implicit addresses" switch?
Lgb

I think I found a solution, but wanted to check with the list to see if I am correct. I was poking around the excerpts and found that people were sending messages to my list "resume@foo.bar" with addresses such as "resume@foo.bar; resume@jobs.com; resume@frank.com; resume@blah.com; etc." What I did was go into list admin and under privacy options, did the following:
Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting >>> 1
This was changed from the default of 10. Should this solve the problem?
=Doug=
"Douglas Munoz" <dmunoz@meyersgroup.com> writes:
| I am running a very small, un-moderated list for the internal staff of my | company. It is basically set up to allow non-members (job seekers) to post | messages (resumes) to list members (HR). | | Every couple of days I will get notification that a message requires | administrative review. The reason given is: | | Reason: Message has implicit destination | | I can't seem to figure out what is going on. I have looked through the | message excerpt on each to find a common thread, but no luck.
When I saw this it was because of an To: header like this:
To: Friends <addr1; addr2; addr3; addr4; ... >
Where one of the addr's was the mailinglis address.
Hmm...perhaps there should be a "Don't warn on implicit addresses" switch?
Lgb

Douglas Munoz wrote:
I think I found a solution, but wanted to check with the list to see if I am correct. I was poking around the excerpts and found that people were sending messages to my list "resume@foo.bar" with addresses such as "resume@foo.bar; resume@jobs.com; resume@frank.com; resume@blah.com; etc."
I think there's information in here but I can't see it. What do you mean "with address such as resume@foo.bar; resume@jobs.com; etc.", exactly? Do you mean messages that had
To: resume@foo.bar; resume@jobs.com
or
To: resume@foo.bar, resume@jobs.com
or
To: resume@foo.bar
and others with
To: resume@jobs.com
or what?
In the first case, I *think* that's an illegal address; AFAIK, ';' is not allowed in an email address; but if not, it's effectively the same as the second case.
In the second case, that's multiple addresses on one To: line, which includes the list address you gave, so shouldn't be a problem.
In the third case, the first message is to the list, so shouldn't cause a problem, but the second message is *not* to the list, and will definitely cause a problem.
What I did was go into list admin and under privacy options, did the following:
Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting >>> 1
This was changed from the default of 10. Should this solve the problem?
??? "Implicit destination" means, as has been said, "the list address is not mentioned in To: or Cc:"; the *number* of recipients doesn't affect and isn't affected by the *content* of recipients. No, this has nothing to do with the problem of seeing messages held for approval because of implicit destination addresses.
=Doug=
"Douglas Munoz" <dmunoz@meyersgroup.com> writes:
| I am running a very small, un-moderated list for the internal staff of my | company. It is basically set up to allow non-members (job seekers) to post | messages (resumes) to list members (HR). | | Every couple of days I will get notification that a message requires | administrative review. The reason given is: | | Reason: Message has implicit destination | | I can't seem to figure out what is going on. I have looked through the | message excerpt on each to find a common thread, but no luck.
When I saw this it was because of an To: header like this:
To: Friends <addr1; addr2; addr3; addr4; ... >
Where one of the addr's was the mailinglis address.
Hmm...perhaps there should be a "Don't warn on implicit addresses" switch?
Lgb
Mailman-Users maillist - Mailman-Users@python.org http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users

Dan Mick <Dan.Mick@west.sun.com> writes:
| Douglas Munoz wrote: | > | > I think I found a solution, but wanted to check with the list to see if I am | > correct. | > I was poking around the excerpts and found that people were sending messages | > to my list "resume@foo.bar" with addresses such as "resume@foo.bar; | > resume@jobs.com; resume@frank.com; resume@blah.com; etc." | | I think there's information in here but I can't see it. What do you mean | "with address such as resume@foo.bar; resume@jobs.com; etc.", exactly? | Do you mean messages that had
No... if you move to clicks up the thread you will see: (this is in the text that you qouted as well)
To: Friends <mailaddr1; mailaddr2; mailaddr3; mailaddr4>
This is flagged as implici destinaion by mailman.
Lgb

At 07:07 PM 1/2/01, Dan Mick wrote:
??? "Implicit destination" means, as has been said, "the list address is not mentioned in To: or Cc:"; the *number* of recipients doesn't affect and isn't affected by the *content* of recipients. No, this has nothing to do with the problem of seeing messages held for approval because of implicit destination addresses.
However, what I've seen is that if the address in the To: header does not match the canonical listname (case-sensitive) I got the "Implicit destination" error until I either put a case-insensitive regexp into the "equivalent addresses" field or turned off the "require explicit destination" setting.
Jim Trigg

Douglas Munoz wrote:
I am running a very small, un-moderated list for the internal staff of my company. It is basically set up to allow non-members (job seekers) to post messages (resumes) to list members (HR).
Every couple of days I will get notification that a message requires administrative review. The reason given is:
Reason: Message has implicit destination
This means the message has an implicit destination. "Implicit" means "not obviously set to go to the list", so there's some way it's getting to the list without mentioning the list in To: or Cc:, usually Bcc:.
You can change the list config to make it accept such messages (see the admin html pages), or you can tell your users to stop Bcc'ing the list.

On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Dan Mick wrote:
This means the message has an implicit destination.
Does this term have a standardized or well-understood meaning outside of Mailman? If not, "list posting address does not appear in To: or CC: headers" would be a far more useful message.
-- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114 "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick
participants (5)
-
Dan Mick
-
Douglas Munoz
-
Jim Trigg
-
larsbj@lyx.org
-
Roger B.A. Klorese