On Wed, 26 May 93 2:18:52 CDT, Peter Meyer <uunet!cactus.org!wixer!wixer.bga.com!meyer> wrote -
My previous message to cypherpunks, the one which had subject heading "AT&T" and which began: "I recently switched my long distance carrier from AT&T to another, since they bribed me to do so with an offer of $35." seemed to be posted OK (it apparently came back to me as expected) but I also got this funny bounce message:
From attmail.com!uucp@cactus.org Tue May 25 23:37:59 1993
[ remainder of header deleted ]
This seems odd. What's going on? Do all messages with "AT&T" in the subject line get siphoned off somewhere for review? Did this one generate a bounce message because the account of Bryan Petty, AT&T spy, wasn't receiving tonight? OK, I'm just paranoid. (Paranoia - that's your state of mind when you finally realize what's really going on.)
At least I'm not the only one who has recently noticed this. I had to do a double take when I received not only my original post on UUNet questions from cypherpunks-request@taod.com, but I received a second copy with this header:
I can only assume that the bounce came to you becasue the cpypherpounk list isn't set to make bounces go to the list maintainer. The message was in fact a bounce, as this header testifies. Not-Delivered-To: mhs!dca/G=bryan/S=petty/OU=dcaicc due to 01 Invalid Address Specification
I can only assume that the bounce came to you becasue the cpypherpounk list isn't set to make bounces go to the list maintainer.
This is the first of these messages we've had for six months, as the bounce messages do in fact go back to the maintainer, me, quite regularly. I get on the order of 300-400 per week, since often a bad address will queue up mail for a few days before bouncing it all. Eric
Eric Hughes writes:
I can only assume that the bounce came to you becasue the cpypherpounk list isn't set to make bounces go to the list maintainer.
This is the first of these messages we've had for six months, as the bounce messages do in fact go back to the maintainer, me, quite regularly. I get on the order of 300-400 per week, since often a bad address will queue up mail for a few days before bouncing it all.
If that's so, then it must be that the stupid transport software at AT&T is ignoring the envelope sender information.
participants (3)
-
Eric Hughes -
fergp＠sytex.com -
Kyle Jones