[Mailman-Users] Case-Sensitivity Problem?

Mark Sapiro msapiro at value.net
Wed Dec 13 21:01:50 CET 2006

Ryan Steele wrote:

>I think I've actually identified the problem. 

I don't think so.

>Here is an excerpt from the mail header:
>>Received: from FOO at aol.com
>>         by imo-m26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.6.) id e.cef.43ab224 (57293);
>>         Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:41:44 -0500 (EST)
>>From: FOO at aol.com
>>Message-ID: <cef.43ab224.32b16b26 at aol.com>
>>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:41:42 EST
>And here is a message from Mailman's bounce log:
> >Dec 13 09:42:38 2006 (2202) bounce message w/no discernable addresses: 
><cef.43ab224.32b16b26 at aol.com>
> >Dec 13 09:42:38 2006 (2202) forwarding unrecognized, message-id: 
><cef.43ab224.32b16b26 at aol.com>
>For whatever reason, Mailman treated the message-id that AOL gave it as 
>the sender address...thus causing the "Uncaught bounce notification" 
>error.   The actual bounce occurred because it was sent for moderator 
>approval due to the large number of recipients:

No. The 'bounce' occurred because one of the recipients was the
Igcpgrads-bounces address.

> >vette:Dec 13 09:38:51 2006 (2204) Igcpgrads post from foo at aol.com 
>held, message-id=<cce.5a1853c.3
> >2b16a2d at aol.com>: Too many recipients to the message

And the message was held because the number of explicit addresses in
To: and Cc: of the message was greater than or equal to Privacy
options...->Recipient filters->max_num_recipients.

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

More information about the Mailman-Users mailing list