Subject: [Fwd: [[email-masked]: You have been removed from the list]]

From: Stuart Staniford <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:57:44 -0800

This seems relevant also.

Stuart.

-------- Original Message --------
Received: from turing.cs.hmc.edu (turing.cs.hmc.edu [134.173.42.99])by
home.humboldt1.com (Pro-8.9.2/Pro-8.9.2) with ESMTP id KAA23497for
<[email-masked]>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:27:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from mike@localhost)by turing.cs.hmc.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id
KAA20217;Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:20:56 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:20:56 -0800
From: Mike Erlinger <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Mike Erlinger <[email-masked]>,stuart staniford-chen
<[email-masked]>
Subject: [[email-masked]: You have been removed from the
list]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="oC1+HKm2/end4ao3"
X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: N3"#!81W!!7!6"!lP-"!

hi james

i know that you are out of the office, but i will be gone for 2 weeks
and wanted to state another problem.

basically, when i post to the idwg list, there are a number of bounces -
bad addresses.  i am then removed from the list because of the number
of bounces.  it is not that my address is bad, but that some number of
addresses in the list are bad.  to me this is a list problem, not my
problem. 

i see 2 ways to fix it.  first, the rules can just be changed.  second,
the list manager can catch the bounces and delete the addresses.

thanks
mike

-- 
mike erlinger, professor computer science
www:      http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~mike
email:    [email-masked]
smail:    computer science dept harvey mudd college,
          301 E. 12th Street, Claremont, CA, 91711 
909-621-8912,   FAX: 909-621-8465

Subject: You have been removed from the list
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:36:24 +0100 (CET)

Your mail address [email-masked] has been removed
from the [email-masked] mailinglist.
It generated an excessive amount of bounced mails.

Before sending in a subscription request to
[email-masked] again, please ensure that
this problem has been resolved.	 When in doubt, ask your system
administrator or send mail to "postmaster".

The last one of those bounced mails has been quoted below:
>From MAILER-DAEMON  Thu Dec 28 18:36:24 2000
>Return-Path: <>
>Delivered-To: [email-masked]
>Received: from internet-gateway.zurich.ibm.com (internet-gateway-x.zurich.ibm.com [195.212.119.253])
>	by www.opencard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E586C30CD
>	for <[email-masked]>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:36:24 +0100 (CET)
>Received: from internet-filter.zurich.ibm.com (internet-filter.zurich.ibm.com [195.212.119.254]) by internet-gateway.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA33032 for <[email-masked]>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:36:23 +0100
>Received: from prv-mail20.provo.novell.com (prv-mail20.provo.novell.com [137.65.81.122]) by internet-filter.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA11486 for <[email-masked]>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:36:22 +0100
>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:36:22 +0100
>Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
>Received: from agent86.provo.novell.com
>	by prv-mail20.provo.novell.com; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:36:04 -0700
>From: Novell Electronic Postmaster <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Undeliverable Mail...
>Original-Subject: New Version of Requirements Doc
>Precedence: Bulk
>
>The mail you sent could not be delivered to:
>
>gpurushottam
>
>The user/address is either incorrect or no longer valid in Novell's mail
>system.  Please check the address and resend.  Please forward address
>inquiries to:
>
>[email-masked]
>
>Your (possibly truncated) original message follows:
>
>>Received: from prv-mail20.provo.novell.com by agent86.provo.novell.com ; 28 DEC 00 10:59:43 MDT
>>Received: from prv1-mx.provo.novell.com
>>	by prv-mail20.provo.novell.com; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:35:50 -0700
>>Received: from www.opencard.org
>>	by prv1-mx.provo.novell.com; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:30:27 -0700
>>Received: by www.opencard.org (Postfix, from userid 0)
>>	id 9AEF3C30C0; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:35:03 +0100 (CET)
>>Old-Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
>>Delivered-To: [email-masked]
>>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:34:47 -0800
>>From: Mike Erlinger <[email-masked]>
>>To: intrusion detection wg <[email-masked]>
>>Cc: Mike Erlinger <[email-masked]>
>>Subject: New Version of Requirements Doc
>>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>>Mime-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Length: 44642
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>Content-Disposition: inline
>>User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
>>Sender: [email-masked]
>>Resent-Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>>Resent-From: [email-masked]
>>X-Mailing-List: <[email-masked]> archive/latest/278
>>X-Loop: [email-masked]
>>Precedence: list
>>Resent-Sender: [email-masked]
>>Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:35:03 +0100 (CET)
>>
>>A new version of the IDWG Requirements Doc was posted to the IETF
>>today.  The document follows below.  I will also post as a separate
>>email, a list of the IESG's comments on the previous document and
>>our response.  Finally, I will post a Working Group last call for
>>the requirements doc.  
>>
>>mike
>>
>>mike erlinger, professor computer science
>>www:      http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~mike
>>email:    [email-masked]
>>smail:    computer science dept harvey mudd college,
>>          301 E. 12th Street, Claremont, CA, 91711 
>>909-621-8912,   FAX: 909-621-8465
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Internet-Draft                                                 Wood, M.
>