Brad Knowles wrote:
At 11:35 AM -0500 12/14/06, Ryan Steele wrote:
Yes, I realize this. But, there's no reason for the log to indicate
that [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was being considered as an indiscernable address.
That's not quite what happened. Let's go back to an earlier message,
where
At 9:15 AM -0500 12/15/06, Ryan Steele wrote:
Ah, okay. I guess the fact that it first identified the message-id
implicitly and then explicitly lead me to believe it thought that,
in the case of the first line, it was identifying the indiscernible
address. Thank you very much for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:47 PM, Brad Knowles wrote:
Yeah, the stuff that Mailman logs is not always clear as to what
means what. After several years of dealing with it, I still get
confused about some less common types of log entries myself. This
Mark Sapiro wrote:
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
by imo-m26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.6.) id e.cef.43ab224 (57293);
Ryan Steele wrote:
Mark Sapiro wrote:
Ryan Steele wrote:
Here is an excerpt from the mail header:
Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Mark Sapiro ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
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=showfile=faq02.003.htp
for some additional
At 11:35 AM -0500 12/14/06, Ryan Steele wrote:
Yes, I realize this. But, there's no reason for the log to indicate
that [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was being considered as an indiscernable address.
That's not quite what happened. Let's go back to an earlier message,
where you quoted:
And here
To all,
I recently had a member (an administrator and moderator, no less) whose
message was bounced. Their moderation bit is not set, and in addition
to being the list administrator, they are an undigested member.
However, they recently had a message held for moderator approval. I
cannot
Quoting Ryan Steele ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
From reading the docs, I thought that (for list membership purposes),
the email addresses were case insensitive, thus complying with RFC 822.
RFC 822 says that the part before the @ sign *can* be case sensitive. So
the behavour you're seeing is
I think I've actually identified the problem.
Here is an excerpt from the mail header:
Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL
Ryan Steele wrote:
I recently had a member (an administrator and moderator, no less) whose
message was bounced. Their moderation bit is not set, and in addition
to being the list administrator, they are an undigested member.
However, they recently had a message held for moderator approval.
At 2:00 PM -0500 12/13/06, Ryan Steele wrote:
Here is an excerpt from the mail header:
Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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:
13 matches
Mail list logo
