Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]User Surachai V. at UNESCAP4 is not defined Original text follows ---------------------------------------------- Received: from gatekeeper6.un.org by mail-in.un.org (SMTPLINK V2.11.01) ; Thu, 12 Jun 97 07:55:23 EST Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Received: by gatekeeper6.un.org; id JAA14267; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:43:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us(192.147.236.1) by gatekeeper6.un.org via smap (3.2) id xma014264; Thu, 12 Jun 97 09:43:08 -0400 Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA10617; Thu, 12 Jun 97 03:37:47 -0700 Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA10611; Thu, 12 Jun 97 03:37:43 -0700 Received: from 207.172.111.93 (spg-as2s30.erols.com [207.172.111.93]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA04836 for <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <339FC3D1.3502@erols.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:39:30 -0300 From: Fred Ward <fward@erols.com> Organization: Gem Book Publishers X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: absurd bounced messages References: <9706121014.AA10988@nic.rhrz.uni-bonn.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Precedence: bulk Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us It is now clear to all here that it is not necessary to have a malignant virus or a spammer or a crazed hacker to screw up (thread up ??) a newslist. We have all now experienced a serious NET weakness... one guy screws up either his own address or closes his account and we get thousands of messages bounced, rebounced and re-rebounced. It does not take much math to see the ultimate end to this scenario. Perhaps Brian in particular and others in general would like to take this matter as a warning and come up with solutions to provide a way to terminite such bounces once they begin. There is no reason whatsoever that our own mailboxes as well as the NET in general should be plagued with kind of ridiculous duplication. Fred Ward