[Mailman-Users] Implicit Destination

Dan Mick Dan.Mick at west.sun.com
Wed Jan 3 03:10:01 CET 2001

> | > I think I found a solution, but wanted to check with the list to see if I 
> | > correct.
> | > I was poking around the excerpts and found that people were sending 
> | > to my list "resume at foo.bar" with addresses such as "resume at foo.bar;
> | > resume at jobs.com; resume at frank.com; resume at 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 at foo.bar; resume at 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 implicit destinaion by mailman.

"two clicks up" means nothing on a mailing list; I delete incoming
mail after I've read it.  But yes, I see that your problem is also
buried far below in the quoted text.  Your problem statement is
clear, and may well be a bug.  But I didn't respond to your problem
statement, I responded to dmunoz's, and his statement was not clearly
the same as yours; it's not yet clear whether his *problem* is the
same as yours, either.  That's why I asked for clarification.

Since you've now posted your problem twice, though, and in case
it's really what dmunoz means:

Your problem address, namely:

To: Friends <mailaddr1; mailaddr2; mailaddr3; mailaddr4>

is a strange-looking address, so I tried to interpret it using
RFC822, the "standard" for Internet mail addresses.

The only thing it vaguely resembles is something I've never seen in
practice, a "group" address.  Given first the standard "phrase route-addr"
parse, which calls "Friends" the "phrase" (ignored) and "<mailaddr1;
mailaddr2; mailaddr3; mailaddr4>" the "route-addr" part, we could
attempt to interpret route-addr as a "group", perhaps:

    group       =  phrase ":" [#mailbox] ";"

But it's missing "phrase" and ":", and I don't see anything in
RFC822 identifying those as optional.  "phrase" must be at least
one "word", and ":" is not optional.  Also, it doesn't look like
"group" addresses are legal inside "route-addr"s, so it's already
got problems that it's inside the <>.

So I don't know what that address is, but I claim it's not an
RFC822 mail address.  The program that generated it would be 
interesting to know.

I also don't know for sure, but I don't think those are the kind
of addresses that dmunoz was seeing.

More information about the Mailman-Users mailing list