Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:45:05 -0400
From: Jonathan Shaw <jls4 at cwru dot edu>
Subject: Re: Request addresses
>What about SIMS btw? I haven't checked.
In CommuniGator or a web browser, create a user called Unknown with the
options set to "Store in Folder only." This will create a folder in the
<sys>:SIMS Folder:Accounts: folder entitled Unknown@F. Then, trash that
folder and replace it with an alias pointing to AutoShare's Filed Mail
folder.
Alternatively, one point the alias to AutoShare's Mail Back folder if the
mailback confirmation features of AutoShare will be used.
In all honesty, I haven't tried this yet. But in theory, it works. :)
-Jonathan {;-)
Visit <http://b62968.cwru.edu/> for a good laugh.
There are 3 kinds of people: Those who make things happen, those who watch
things happen and those who wonder what happened.
Subject: Re: AutoShare-Talk digest 8 Apr 1998
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 98 13:32:23 +0200
From: Franck Horlaville <fhlist at online.co dot ma>
>Are list server request specific addresses such as list-on at domain dot com
>(subscribe) and list-off at domain dot com (unsubscribe) likely to make your life
>easier? While this approach cannot be described as an automated one per se,
>the syntax is certainly briefer and as such may be of some help to you.
Yes, definitely.
Also if you could tell us what actually works and doesn't work in file
attaches it would be great.
Thanks _a lot_ for your work
Franck Horlaville,
Technical Director - Athena Online s.a.
Web site creation and hosting
--
<http://www.athena.online.co.ma>
Date: 09 Apr 98 08:01:36 -0500
From: Chuck Boody <chuck_boody at hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Subject: Re: Request addresses
Sure I can tell you're on a break Mikael. We haven't had an upgrade for =
24 hours ;->. No rush on my stuff.
Chuck
=============
Mikael Hansen wrote:
>At 17:20 -0400 8/4/1998, Jonathan Shaw wrote:
>
>>So far as I know, you setup everything in AutoShare the same way as =
before.
>>It's just that <listname>-on (for example) works as an alias to sending
>>autoshare a message with subscribe <listname>.
>
>Exactly. AutoShare translates the briefer syntax into the standard syntax,=
>which is really all that's to it.
>
>At 22:45 +0100 8/4/1998, James Berriman wrote:
>
>>Actually, EIMS 2 doesn't have a 'save as files' option for unknown
>>addresses. In this case you have to use the 'send to address' option.
>
>What about SIMS btw? I haven't checked.
>
>At 17:20 -0400 8/4/1998, Jonathan Shaw wrote:
>
>>I think either Mikael or James was hinting that there might make a
>>preference to what happens to mail that really was misdirected.
>
>At 22:45 +0100 8/4/1998, James Berriman wrote:
>
>>Otherwise, the message is forwarded to the postmaster.
>
>Yes, it might become configurable.
>
>At 15:54 -0500 8/4/1998, Chuck Boody wrote:
>
>>Great Stuff here!
>
>At 17:20 -0400 8/4/1998, Jonathan Shaw wrote:
>
>>I'm really happy with AutoShare, too!
>
>Thanks :-)
>
>PS: Chuck, I'll get back to you on your unresolved bounce. It's just that
>(apart from James's pair of thoughts) I am on vacation away from AutoShare=
.
>Can't you tell? :-)
>
>** The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
>** <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Return-Path: <bounce at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>Received: from frutiger.staffs.ac.uk (194.66.172.10) by hopkins.k12.mn.us =
with
> ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.0); Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:28:42 -0600
>Received: from hopf.dnai.com (140.174.162.10) by frutiger.staffs.ac.uk =
with
> ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1b5); Thu, 9 Apr 1998 06:22:17 +=
0100
>Received: from [207.181.206.39] (dnai-207-181-206-19.dialup.dnai.com =
>[207.181.206.19])
> by hopf.dnai.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA22877
> for <AutoShare-Talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 22:22:02 -=
0700 =
>(PDT)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>X-Sender: meh at pop.dnai dot com
>In-Reply-To: <387400093855968134181 at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>References: <956970668918941137397 at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 22:20:47 -0700
>Reply-To: AutoShare-Talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk (Subscribers of AutoShare-=
Talk)
>Errors-To: bounce at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk (AutoShare bounce account)
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:autoshare-talk-on at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:autoshare-talk-off at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>X-List-Digest: =
><mailto:autoshare at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk?body=set%20AutoShare-Talk%=
20digest>
>List-Archive: =
><mailto:autoshare at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk?body=index%20AutoShare-Talk>
>List-Post: <mailto:autoshare-talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>List-Owner: listmaster at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk (James Berriman)
>List-Help: <http://www.dnai.com/~meh/autoshare/>
>List-Software: AutoShare 2.2 by Mikael Hansen
>X-To-Unsubscribe: autoshare at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk, body: unsub AutoShare-=
Talk
>To: AutoShare-Talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk (Subscribers of AutoShare-Talk)
>From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
>Subject: Re: Request addresses
>Message-Id: <274711919283038199969 at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 23:32:42 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: FWD: Unresolved bounce
At 07:48 -0500 8/4/1998, Chuck Boody wrote:
>Shouldn't the bounce in Autoshare have unsubscribed the person below??
The subscriber address doesn't seem to appear anywhere. There are only RFC
headers and no actual bounce message body text to pick it up from.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 23:39:36 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: AutoShare-Talk digest 8 Apr 1998
At 13:32 +0200 9/4/1998, Franck Horlaville wrote:
>Also if you could tell us what actually works and doesn't work in file
>attaches it would be great.
I think that everything which is supposed to work actually works.
>Thanks _a lot_ for your work
Thanks!
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 23:54:09 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: AutoShare 2.2.1b0
Version 2.2.1b0 has been uploaded to
<ftp://ftp.dnai.com/users/m/meh/AutoShare/Beta/>
A minor holiday version, offering minor bug fixes, Jerry's /=include
proposal and James's pair of ideas discussed in recent days.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 20:54:14 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: AutoShare 2.2.1b1
Version 2.2.1b1 has been uploaded to
<ftp://ftp.dnai.com/users/m/meh/AutoShare/Beta/>
The forwarding of unknown account messages is now configurable, described
in the HTML documentation, which has been fully updated.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 03:07:25 -0400
From: Jonathan Shaw <jls4 at cwru dot edu>
Subject: Feature Requests
I was just trying the new features of the latest AutoShare, when I thought
of a couple cool ideas for the improved address handling mechanism.
Now that the "unknown" account is hooked into AutoShare's filed mail
folder, it should be possible to get rid of the AutoShare and Bouncer
accounts. In fact, it doesn't even seem necessary to have the bouncer
address specified in the AutoShare setup. AutoShare could just pick an
address of its choosing (for example, AutoShare-Bouncer).
OK, you might be thinking that you can get rid of the AutoShare address
already. But you can't if you use the mail back feature. Could AutoShare be
adjusted to figure out when messages dropped to filed mail should generate
tokens or not (based on user preferences)? If so, the mail back folder
becomes unnecessary.
-----
This next suggestion is also related to mailback confirmations... Right
now, it seems like an awful large number of my subscribers do not properly
respond to mail back confirmations. They inadvertently send them to the
bouncer address (which I suspect is a problem of their mail program), they
place the token somewhere other than the first line of the message, and so
on. I think this could be simplified by having AutoShare generate a unique
From: address for each message. So, the user replies to the message and it
gets directed to AutoShare29284810 at hostname dot org, for example. AutoShare
gets this message and completes the request.
This totally alleviates user confusion and problems with certain mailers
inserting weird codes in the body of the user's reply.
-----
OK, last suggestion. (for now!)
Now, users can e-mail <listname-digest@host> and <listname-nodigest@host>
to change their mail/digest status. But, this only works if they have
already subscribed. Since AutoShare can now pickup the username from the
RFC From:, and it can accept list commands from the RCPT TO:, can it be
made to also subscribe the user to the list and then carry out the digest
request? Naturally, if the mailback option is set for subscribe, it will
still confirm with the user before carrying out the subscribe and digest
request. Also, if the user is already subscribed, it won't resend itself
the sub line (just the digest line will be sent).
I think I may have said this kinda weird... let me know if it's not clear.
Anyway, thanks again for the great program. :)
-Jonathan {;-)
Visit <http://b62968.cwru.edu/> for a good laugh.
There are 3 kinds of people: Those who make things happen, those who watch
things happen and those who wonder what happened.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 04:04:17 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Feature Requests
At 03:07 -0400 13/4/1998, Jonathan Shaw wrote:
>Now that the "unknown" account is hooked into AutoShare's filed mail
>folder, it should be possible to get rid of the AutoShare and Bouncer
>accounts.
The list server address is an auto-response service, so no need to
configure it specifically on a mail server, which passes the "unknown
account" task onto AutoShare.
>In fact, it doesn't even seem necessary to have the bouncer address
>specified in the AutoShare setup. AutoShare could just pick an
>address of its choosing (for example, AutoShare-Bouncer).
The bounce address is how AutoShare knows of the mail server domain.
>OK, you might be thinking that you can get rid of the AutoShare address
>already. But you can't if you use the mail back feature.
See, I don't understand this! But then again, it's 4 am :-)
>Could AutoShare be adjusted to figure out when messages dropped to filed
>mail should generate tokens or not (based on user preferences)? If so,
>the mail back folder becomes unnecessary.
I've been thinking about this myself! Need to do more thinking.
>This next suggestion is also related to mailback confirmations...
[...]
>it gets directed to AutoShare29284810 at hostname dot org, for example.
You are certainly squeezing every drop out of the AutoShare "unknown
account" feature! It might work.
I do want however to move slowly into this, as not everyone may want to use
the AutoShare "unknown account" feature. But I see your vision of the .m
and .d accounts being the only AutoShare accounts to be created on the mail
server.
>Now, users can e-mail <listname-digest@host> and <listname-nodigest@host>
>to change their mail/digest status. But, this only works if they have
>already subscribed. Since AutoShare can now pickup the username from the
>RFC From:, and it can accept list commands from the RCPT TO:, can it be
>made to also subscribe the user to the list and then carry out the digest
>request?
I actually thought of this when you first brought up the <list>-digest
thing. Yes, it can surely be done.
Date: 13 Apr 98 08:59:55 -0500
From: Chuck Boody <chuck_boody at hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Subject: FWD: Unresolved bounce
Mikael,
Here's another of the bounces that don't unsubscribe. It appears that =
EIMS can't send the message for unknown reasons. Might that be why there =
is no info you can use to do the unsubscribe? =
Any further info you can provide would be helpful. I can, of course, just =
dump the subscriber, but if I can get Autoshare to do it so much the =
better.
Thanks for the info.
Chuck Boody
Analyst/Programmer
ISD 270
=============
--------------------------------------
Date: 4/10/98 7:29 AM
From: bouncer
Text indicates: [] (not subscribed)
Code indicates: [] (not subscribed)
RFC From is: [waldos at bitstream dot net] (does not matter)
RFC To is: [hopkinsgrads at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us] (is a list)
> Return-Path: <MAILER-DAEMON at gate1.grandmet dot com>
> Received: from gate1.grandmet.com (199.254.239.189) by
> stumail.hopkins.k12.mn.us with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1b5)=
; Fri,
> 10 Apr 1998 07:29:10 -0500
> Received: by gate1.grandmet.com; id AA186731093; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:24:=
53 -0500
> Received: from urmpmmsp.grandmet.com(153.13.52.2) by gate1.grandmet.com =
via smap (3.2)
> id xma018669; Fri, 10 Apr 98 07:24:35 -0500
> Subject: Delivery failure
> From: postmaster at urmpmmsp.grandmet dot com
> Message-Id: <B0000584449 at urmpmmsp.grandmet dot com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:19:09 -0500
> To: bouncer at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
> =
> Your message has encountered delivery problems to the following =
recipients:
> TDischer at pillsbury dot com
> =
> Unable to send to destination domain
> Sent: (message data)
> Received:554 Permanent error: reason unknown
> =
> =
> Your message reads (in part):
> =
> Received: from gate1.grandmet.com (unverified [192.168.168.168]) by =
urmpmmsp.grandmet.com
> (Integralis SMTPRS 2.04) with ESMTP id <B0000584448 at urmpmmsp.grandmet dot =
com>;
> Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:18:57 -0500
> Received: by gate1.grandmet.com; id AA186631063; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:24:=
23 -0500
> Received: from stumail.hopkins.k12.mn.us(198.174.221.15) by gate1.=
grandmet.com via smap (3.2)
> id xma018658; Fri, 10 Apr 98 07:23:55 -0500
> Received: from bitstream.net (204.73.77.87) by stumail.hopkins.k12.mn.us =
with
> SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1b5); Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:26:51 -=
0500
> Received: from stevewal (port123.bitstream.net [206.144.237.123])
> by bitstream.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA21765
> for <hopkinsgrads at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us>; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:22:19 =
-0500 (CDT)
> From: "Steve Waldo" <waldos at bitstream dot net>
> To: hopkinsgrads at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us (Subscribers of hopkinsgrads)
> Subject: Seeking reunion info
> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:23:08 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Reply-To: hopkinsgrads at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us (Subscribers of =
hopkinsgrads)
> =
> Errors-To: bouncer at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
> Precedence: bulk
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:listserv at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us?=
subject=subscribe%20hopkinsgrads>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:listserv at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us?=
subject=unsubscribe%20hopkinsgrads>
> X-List-Digest: <mailto:listserv at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us?subject=set%=
20hopkinsgrads%20digest>
> List-Archive: <mailto:listserv at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us?subject=index%=
20hopkinsgrads>
> List-Post: <mailto:hopkinsgrads at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
> List-Owner: chuck_boody at hopkins.k12.mn dot us
> List-Software: AutoShare 2.2 by Mikael Hansen
> X-To-Unsubscribe: listserv at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us, subject: unsub =
hopkinsgrads
> X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
> X-Priority: 3
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
> Message-Id: <498411918868280118343 at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
> =
> Greetings,
> =
> My brother, Jim Waldo, asked me to see if I could find out about his =
class
> reunion. Jim graduated from Hopkins Eisenhower in 1978.
> =
> The reason Jim can't find out himself is that he now lives out of town
> (Sedalia, MO). He also doesn't have access to a computer, so obviously =
he
> doesn't have email. (They do have running water in Sedalia, but I'm not
> sure about electricity or telephone service.)
> =
> I would appreciate any information or suggestions on how to find out =
about
> Jim's 20th reunion.
> =
> Thanks in advance.
> =
> Steve Waldo (Eisenhower, class of '72)
> 8832 Wood Cliff Road
> Bloomington, MN 55438
> =
> waldos at bitstream dot net
> =
RFC822 header
-----------------------------------
Return-Path: <bouncer at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Received: from stumail.hopkins.k12.mn.us (198.174.221.15) by hopkins.k12.=
mn.us
with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.0); Fri, 10 Apr 1998 06:28:54 -=
0600
To: chuck_boody at hopkins.k12.mn dot us
Precedence: bulk
From: bouncer at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
Errors-To: bouncer at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
Subject: Unresolved bounce
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:29:17 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <799603204975915941052 at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 12:27:17 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: FWD: Unresolved bounce
At 08:59 -0500 13/4/1998, Chuck Boody wrote:
>Here's another of the bounces that don't unsubscribe.
Got it now. It helps when my eyes are open :-)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 21:00:13 -0400
From: Jonathan Shaw <jls4 at cwru dot edu>
Subject: Re: Feature Requests
>At 03:07 -0400 13/4/1998, Jonathan Shaw wrote:
>
>>Now that the "unknown" account is hooked into AutoShare's filed mail
>>folder, it should be possible to get rid of the AutoShare and Bouncer
>>accounts.
>
>The list server address is an auto-response service, so no need to
>configure it specifically on a mail server, which passes the "unknown
>account" task onto AutoShare.
Say a list is configured to have mail back confirmation for the subscribe
command. If there is no AutoShare mail account, and the Unknown account
drops into AutoShare's Filed Mail folder, than it will not perform mailback
confirmation. Instead, it will immediately subscribe the user.
Also, if there IS an AutoShare account which points to the AutoShare Mail
Back folder, then a standard request issued to <AutoShare@sitename> will
work properly. However, a message sent to <listname-on@sitename> will NOT
go through the mail back process, unless the Unknown address points to the
Mail Back folder.
Finally, if you set the Unknown account to point to the mail back folder
(so you can still have mailback confirmation), it does confirmation on
every single message it receives, whether it is a subscribe request or not.
This is not good...
>>OK, you might be thinking that you can get rid of the AutoShare address
>>already. But you can't if you use the mail back feature.
>
>See, I don't understand this! But then again, it's 4 am :-)
I really did a poor job of explaining what I meant. See above for better
detail.
>>Could AutoShare be adjusted to figure out when messages dropped to filed
>>mail should generate tokens or not (based on user preferences)? If so,
>>the mail back folder becomes unnecessary.
>
>I've been thinking about this myself! Need to do more thinking.
OK--that's really what I meant above. In the current release it is broken
for people using the new "Unknown" routing feature (imho).
>>This next suggestion is also related to mailback confirmations...
>[...]
>>it gets directed to AutoShare29284810 at hostname dot org, for example.
>
>You are certainly squeezing every drop out of the AutoShare "unknown
>account" feature! It might work.
Squeeze! :)
>I do want however to move slowly into this, as not everyone may want to use
>the AutoShare "unknown account" feature. But I see your vision of the .m
>and .d accounts being the only AutoShare accounts to be created on the mail
>server.
One might argue that even those are not really necessary--couldn't you put
all the recipients in the resource fork? Of course, I don't think that's a
very good idea (esp. for large numbers of recipients), and it would
certainly not be as efficient speed/disk space wise.
>>Now, users can e-mail <listname-digest@host> and <listname-nodigest@host>
>>to change their mail/digest status. But, this only works if they have
>>already subscribed. Since AutoShare can now pickup the username from the
>>RFC From:, and it can accept list commands from the RCPT TO:, can it be
>>made to also subscribe the user to the list and then carry out the digest
>>request?
>
>I actually thought of this when you first brought up the <list>-digest
>thing. Yes, it can surely be done.
Michele, I think you've outdone all the competition! :)
-Jonathan {;-)
Visit <http://b62968.cwru.edu/> for a good laugh.
There are 3 kinds of people: Those who make things happen, those who watch
things happen and those who wonder what happened.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 21:00:13 -0400
From: Jonathan Shaw <jls4 at cwru dot edu>
Subject: Re: Feature Requests
>At 03:07 -0400 13/4/1998, Jonathan Shaw wrote:
>
>>Now that the "unknown" account is hooked into AutoShare's filed mail
>>folder, it should be possible to get rid of the AutoShare and Bouncer
>>accounts.
>
>The list server address is an auto-response service, so no need to
>configure it specifically on a mail server, which passes the "unknown
>account" task onto AutoShare.
Say a list is configured to have mail back confirmation for the subscribe
command. If there is no AutoShare mail account, and the Unknown account
drops into AutoShare's Filed Mail folder, than it will not perform mailback
confirmation. Instead, it will immediately subscribe the user.
Also, if there IS an AutoShare account which points to the AutoShare Mail
Back folder, then a standard request issued to <AutoShare@sitename> will
work properly. However, a message sent to <listname-on@sitename> will NOT
go through the mail back process, unless the Unknown address points to the
Mail Back folder.
Finally, if you set the Unknown account to point to the mail back folder
(so you can still have mailback confirmation), it does confirmation on
every single message it receives, whether it is a subscribe request or not.
This is not good...
>>OK, you might be thinking that you can get rid of the AutoShare address
>>already. But you can't if you use the mail back feature.
>
>See, I don't understand this! But then again, it's 4 am :-)
I really did a poor job of explaining what I meant. See above for better
detail.
>>Could AutoShare be adjusted to figure out when messages dropped to filed
>>mail should generate tokens or not (based on user preferences)? If so,
>>the mail back folder becomes unnecessary.
>
>I've been thinking about this myself! Need to do more thinking.
OK--that's really what I meant above. In the current release it is broken
for people using the new "Unknown" routing feature (imho).
>>This next suggestion is also related to mailback confirmations...
>[...]
>>it gets directed to AutoShare29284810 at hostname dot org, for example.
>
>You are certainly squeezing every drop out of the AutoShare "unknown
>account" feature! It might work.
Squeeze! :)
>I do want however to move slowly into this, as not everyone may want to use
>the AutoShare "unknown account" feature. But I see your vision of the .m
>and .d accounts being the only AutoShare accounts to be created on the mail
>server.
One might argue that even those are not really necessary--couldn't you put
all the recipients in the resource fork? Of course, I don't think that's a
very good idea (esp. for large numbers of recipients), and it would
certainly not be as efficient speed/disk space wise.
>>Now, users can e-mail <listname-digest@host> and <listname-nodigest@host>
>>to change their mail/digest status. But, this only works if they have
>>already subscribed. Since AutoShare can now pickup the username from the
>>RFC From:, and it can accept list commands from the RCPT TO:, can it be
>>made to also subscribe the user to the list and then carry out the digest
>>request?
>
>I actually thought of this when you first brought up the <list>-digest
>thing. Yes, it can surely be done.
Mikael, I think you've outdone all the competition! :)
-Jonathan {;-)
Visit <http://b62968.cwru.edu/> for a good laugh.
There are 3 kinds of people: Those who make things happen, those who watch
things happen and those who wonder what happened.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 22:38:36 -0400
From: Jonathan Shaw <jls4 at cwru dot edu>
Subject: sorry
I didn't mean to send that response twice. Please ignore the second copy,
which contained a pretty poor pun.
-Jonathan {;-)
Visit <http://b62968.cwru.edu/> for a good laugh.
There are 3 kinds of people: Those who make things happen, those who watch
things happen and those who wonder what happened.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:08:05 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: FWD: Unresolved bounce
At 12:27 -0700 13/4/1998, Mikael Hansen wrote:
>Got it now. It helps when my eyes are open :-)
The bounce format is supported. But it is not to work until a blank line
separates the header from the body, Chuck.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:16:17 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Feature Requests
At 21:00 -0400 13/4/1998, Jonathan Shaw wrote:
>Mikael, I think you've outdone all the competition! :)
Thanks. For the proper spelling too!
At 22:38 -0400 13/4/1998, Jonathan Shaw wrote:
>I didn't mean to send that response twice. Please ignore the second copy,
>which contained a pretty poor pun.
Don't worry about it. No one got any sleep last night :-)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 21:04:50 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Bounces and the Filed Mail folder
One of Jonathan's thoughts was: what if the bounce account ('save as' in
EIMS, 'folder' in SIMS) did not point to the Bounce folder, but rather to
the Filed Mail folder, thereby eliminating the configuration of that
account too?
It's quite simple really. The idea is that if the recipient address is the
bounce address, then the file is moved from the Filed Mail folder to the
Bounce folder, thereby also upholding backwards compatibility.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 21:28:48 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Feature Requests
At 21:00 -0400 13/4/1998, Jonathan Shaw wrote:
>If there is no AutoShare mail account, and the Unknown account drops
>into AutoShare's Filed Mail folder, than it will not perform mailback
>confirmation. Instead, it will immediately subscribe the user.
Need some sleep before I can deal with that one!
>One might argue that even those are not really necessary--couldn't you put
>all the recipients in the resource fork? Of course, I don't think that's a
>very good idea (esp. for large numbers of recipients), and it would
>certainly not be as efficient speed/disk space wise.
No, no, no... Apple in very strong terms recommmends against using the
resource fork as a database :-)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:23:13 +0100
Subject: Re: Feature Requests
From: "James Berriman" <J.R.Berriman at staffs.ac dot uk>
Jonathan Shaw wrote:
>Say a list is configured to have mail back confirmation for the subscribe
>command. If there is no AutoShare mail account, and the Unknown account
>drops into AutoShare's Filed Mail folder, than it will not perform mailback
>confirmation. Instead, it will immediately subscribe the user.
Mail-backs for lists are best configured using the Mail-back string in the
admin's "list" dialog. It shouldn't require messages to be saved in the Mail
Back folder at all. Are you saying that this mechanism doesn't work?
From the docs:
>If both the general and list-specific mail-back strings are blank
>(default), no mail-back takes place for the list server account. It
>therefore doesn't matter whether the EIMS account points to the Mail
>Back folder or the Filed Mail folder.
As far as I can see, the only accounts which should really require the Mail
Back folder are individual autoresponse accounts (like AutoShare-software@).
A while ago I suggested that it would be nice to apply mail-backs on a
file-by-file basis. This would make life simpler. Just place a /=mailback
token in a particular document, and mail-back would be applied to that file
only.
My reasoning?
I don't want people to have to jump through the mail-back hoop to get the
default file (which is short and tells them how to access the other files).
I *do* want to add mail-back protection to the other files in
AutoShare-software@, because they have large dot hqx attachments.
( :-]) James
Date: 14 Apr 98 11:43:24 -0500
From: Chuck Boody <chuck_boody at hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Subject: RE: sorry
You can "punish" us as much as you wish as long as you continue to be so =
helpful ;->
Chuck boody
=============
Jonathan Shaw wrote:
>I didn't mean to send that response twice. Please ignore the second copy,
>which contained a pretty poor pun.
>
>-Jonathan {;-)
>Visit <http://b62968.cwru.edu/> for a good laugh.
>
>There are 3 kinds of people: Those who make things happen, those who =
watch
>things happen and those who wonder what happened.
>
>
>
>** The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
>** <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Return-Path: <bounce at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>Received: from frutiger.staffs.ac.uk (194.66.172.10) by hopkins.k12.mn.us =
with
> ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.0); Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:33:35 -0600
>Received: from b62968.student.cwru.edu (129.22.245.248) by
> frutiger.staffs.ac.uk with SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1b5); Tue,=
14
> Apr 1998 03:28:21 +0100
>Received: from [129.22.245.248] ([129.22.245.248] verified) by =
>b62968.student.cwru.edu (Stalker SMTP Server 1.6) with ESMTP id S.=
0000002675 for =
><autoshare-talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 22:38:45 -0400
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 22:38:36 -0400
>Reply-To: autoshare-talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk (Subscribers of autoshare-=
talk)
>Errors-To: bounce at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk (AutoShare bounce account)
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:autoshare-talk-on at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:autoshare-talk-off at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>X-List-Digest: =
><mailto:autoshare at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk?body=set%20autoshare-talk%=
20digest>
>List-Archive: =
><mailto:autoshare at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk?body=index%20autoshare-talk>
>List-Post: <mailto:autoshare-talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>List-Owner: listmaster at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk (James Berriman)
>List-Help: <http://www.dnai.com/~meh/autoshare/>
>List-Software: AutoShare 2.2 by Mikael Hansen
>X-To-Unsubscribe: autoshare at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk, body: unsub autoshare-=
talk
>To: autoshare-talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk (Subscribers of autoshare-talk)
>From: Jonathan Shaw <jls4 at cwru dot edu>
>Subject: sorry
>Message-Id: <488737352944064131629 at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>
Date: 14 Apr 98 11:45:42 -0500
From: Chuck Boody <chuck_boody at hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Subject: Re: FWD: Unresolved bounce
Mikael Hansen wrote:
>The bounce format is supported. But it is not to work until a blank line
>separates the header from the body.
>
Is that something I have control over? I don't think so in either EIMS (2.=
1bx) or Autoshare.
Chuck
=============
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 12:59:54 -0400
From: Jonathan Shaw <jls4 at cwru dot edu>
Subject: Re: Feature Requests
James Berriman wrote:
>
> Jonathan Shaw wrote:
>
> >Say a list is configured to have mail back confirmation for the subscribe
> >command. If there is no AutoShare mail account, and the Unknown account
> >drops into AutoShare's Filed Mail folder, than it will not perform mailback
> >confirmation. Instead, it will immediately subscribe the user.
>
> Mail-backs for lists are best configured using the Mail-back string in the
> admin's "list" dialog. It shouldn't require messages to be saved in the Mail
> Back folder at all. Are you saying that this mechanism doesn't work?
Yes. Currently, if mail arrives in the Mail Back folder (and it was not
addressed to "AutoShare"), then a mail back confirmation is created and
sent, no matter what the contents of the mail are.
> >From the docs:
>
> >If both the general and list-specific mail-back strings are blank
> >(default), no mail-back takes place for the list server account. It
> >therefore doesn't matter whether the EIMS account points to the Mail
> >Back folder or the Filed Mail folder.
It now does matter with the new "Unknown" mechanism. If mail is dropped
to mail back, then it will create a mailback. The settings per list are
ignored, unless you create an actual mail address for each list (like
you needed to do before the new version).
> As far as I can see, the only accounts which should really require the Mail
> Back folder are individual autoresponse accounts (like AutoShare-software@).
Agreed.
> A while ago I suggested that it would be nice to apply mail-backs on a
> file-by-file basis. This would make life simpler. Just place a /=mailback
> token in a particular document, and mail-back would be applied to that file
> only.
>
> My reasoning?
>
> I don't want people to have to jump through the mail-back hoop to get the
> default file (which is short and tells them how to access the other files).
> I *do* want to add mail-back protection to the other files in
> AutoShare-software@, because they have large dot hqx attachments.
Sounds like a good plan.
> ( :-]) James
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:25:36 +0100
Subject: Re: Feature Requests
From: "James Berriman" <J.R.Berriman at staffs.ac dot uk>
Jonathan Shaw wrote:
>James Berriman wrote:
>>
>> Mail-backs for lists are best configured using the Mail-back string in
the
>> admin's "list" dialog. It shouldn't require messages to be saved in the
Mail
>> Back folder at all. Are you saying that this mechanism doesn't work?
>
>Yes. Currently, if mail arrives in the Mail Back folder (and it was not
>addressed to "AutoShare"), then a mail back confirmation is created and
>sent, no matter what the contents of the mail are.
We appear to be talking at cross-purposes here :-). That's precisely what I
would expect to happen!
>> >From the docs:
>>
>> >If both the general and list-specific mail-back strings are blank
>> >(default), no mail-back takes place for the list server account. It
>> >therefore doesn't matter whether the EIMS account points to the Mail
>> >Back folder or the Filed Mail folder.
>
>It now does matter with the new "Unknown" mechanism. If mail is dropped
>to mail back, then it will create a mailback. The settings per list are
>ignored, unless you create an actual mail address for each list (like
>you needed to do before the new version).
Ah, now I see what you are driving at :-)
I didn't understand that from reading your first message.
( :-]) James
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:43:07 +0100
Subject: Re: Unresolved bounce
From: "James Berriman" <james at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
Chuck Wrote:
>Mikael,
>
>Again these bounces. I had 8 today. I can clean up the lists by hand, but
clearly the 550 should be unsubscribed. What can I do to get things to work
correctly?? What could be set wrong???
>
>Chuck Boody
>Analyst/Programmer
>ISD 270
>=============
>
>
>--------------------------------------
>Date: 4/15/98 12:10 AM
>From: bouncer
>Text indicates: [] (not subscribed)
>Code indicates: [Sarah_French at hopkins.k12.mn dot us] (not subscribed)
>RFC From is: [Jody_Ouradnik at hopkins.k12.mn dot us] (does not matter)
>RFC To is: [hhsmail at hopkins.k12.mn dot us,] (is a list)
>
>> Return-Path: <>
>> From: Postmaster at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
>> To: bouncer at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
>> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 12:09:22 -0500
>> Message-ID: <1319566734-72568628 at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
>> Subject: Undeliverable Mail
>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="=_b159027204534f34@stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us"
>> > --=_b159027204534f34 at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> > The following message could not be delivered because the address >
Sarah_French at hopkins.k12.mn dot us was rejected by host hopkins.k12.mn.us >
(198.174.221.9).
>> 550 5.1.1 user Sarah_French at hopkins.k12.mn dot us not known
>> > ----Unsent message follows----
[snip]
Chuck,
Notice that AutoShare did correctly identify the account:
>Code indicates: [Sarah_French at hopkins.k12.mn dot us] (not subscribed)
It may be that this bounce refers to an address that was already
unsubscribed by AutoShare due to a previous hard bounce?
Whatever, it's clear that the bounce module identified the address OK.
I notice that all the blank lines in your forwarded message have been
stripped out (as Mikael indicated previously, there's no blank line between
headers and body).
Is this how the messages appear at your end, or are they getting munged on
the way to us?
( :-]) James
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 12:54:02 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Mail-backs and the Filed Mail folder
When pondering on allowing mail-backs to arrive directly in the Filed Mail
folder, considerations are type-specific:
-list server requests already have a special mail-back string setting,
aimed at individual requests, so this is halfway in place,
-list contributions need a special list-specific setting,
-standard auto-responses require something like a /=mailback token.
A file move, like the bounce one, is likely to be implemented.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:28:02 -0500
From: Paul DuBois <paul at snake dot net>
Subject: question about subscriber-only lists
For subscriber-only lists, does the address matching proceed only on
the From: header, or is there a setting to allow posts where either
the From: or Reply-To: header matches an address in the subscriber list?
I didn't find an answer to this in a quick look through the documention.
Reason I ask is because then subscribers could use a Reply-To: to set
a consistent return address to cope with having their institution change
their address on them.
--
Paul DuBois
paul at snake dot net
Home Page: http://www.primate.wisc.edu/people/dubois
Software: http://www.primate.wisc.edu/software
Date: 14 Apr 98 15:41:06 -0500
From: Chuck Boody <chuck_boody at hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Subject: Re: Unresolved bounce
James Berriman wrote:
>
>Chuck,
>
>Notice that AutoShare did correctly identify the account:
>>Code indicates: [Sarah_French at hopkins.k12.mn dot us] (not subscribed)
>
>It may be that this bounce refers to an address that was already
>unsubscribed by AutoShare due to a previous hard bounce?
>
>Whatever, it's clear that the bounce module identified the address OK.
>
>I notice that all the blank lines in your forwarded message have been
>stripped out (as Mikael indicated previously, there's no blank line =
between
>headers and body).
>
>Is this how the messages appear at your end, or are they getting munged =
on
>the way to us?
>
>( :-]) James
>
That is how the headers appear in my client. QM Pro is sometimes a bit =
wierd about this sort of thing and could have munged them. I'll try to =
open the messages in Eudora and see what is there. I suspect, though, =
that that is the way they are.
Chuck
=============
Date: 14 Apr 98 17:43:15 -0500
From: Chuck Boody <chuck_boody at hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Subject: FWD: Unsubscribed (hard bounce)
OK guys figure this out. A second set of messages apparently was sent by =
the bouncer or by someone else. This time those pesky bounced messages =
were properly unsubscribed (see below). Could it be that I have set =
something so that I get a bounced message even as Autoshare is storing the =
message to be "bounce checked?" I don't think anything like that is =
turned on, but I'll check. Alice was right "curiouser and curiouser..."
Chuck Boody
=============
--------------------------------------
Date: 4/14/98 5:31 PM
From: bouncer
Sarah_French at hopkins.k12.mn dot us has been unsubscribed from the njhmail list =
due to a hard bounce
Return-Path: <>
From: Postmaster at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
To: bouncer at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:31:01 -0500
Message-ID: <1319547435-73729474 at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Subject: Undeliverable Mail
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary_b1594dd5046505c2 at stumail.hopkins dot =
k12.mn.us"
--=0B1594dd5046505c2 at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The following message could not be delivered because the address =
Sarah_French at hopkins.k12.mn dot us was rejected by host hopkins.k12.mn.us =
(198.174.221.9).
550 5.1.1 user Sarah_French at hopkins.k12.mn dot us not known
----Unsent message follows----
--=_b1594dd5046505c2 at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Received: from hopkins.k12.mn.us (198.174.221.9) by stumail.hopkins.k12.mn.=
us
with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1b5); Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:30:39
-0500
Received: from 198.174.221.120 by hopkins.k12.mn.us with ESMTP (Eudora =
Internet
Mail Server 2.0); Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:30:14 -0600
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:28:37 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: Gary Feierer <gary_feierer at hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Errors-To: bouncer at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:listserv at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us?=
subject=subscribe%20njhmail>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:listserv at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us?=
subject=unsubscribe%20njhmail>
X-List-Digest: <mailto:listserv at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us?subject=set%=
20njhmail%20digest>
List-Archive: <mailto:listserv at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us?subject=index%=
20njhmail>
List-Post: <mailto:njhmail at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
List-Owner: chuck_boody at hopkins.k12.mn dot us
List-Software: AutoShare 2.2.1b1 by Mikael Hansen
X-To-Unsubscribe: listserv at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us, subject: unsub =
njhmail
From: Gary Feierer <gary_feierer at hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Organization: Hopkins School District #270
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01aC-DIAL (Macintosh; U; PPC)
To: njhmail at hopkins.k12.mn dot us (Subscribers of njhmail)
Subject: TEST...
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-Id: <067347690684810223248 at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Just trying to set up new mail centers and wondering (hoping actually)
if this message got through...
--=_b1594dd5046505c2 at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us--
RFC822 header
-----------------------------------
Return-Path: <bouncer at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Received: from stumail.hopkins.k12.mn.us (198.174.221.15) by hopkins.k12.=
mn.us
with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.0); Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:30:59 -=
0600
To: chuck_boody at hopkins.k12.mn dot us
Precedence: bulk
From: bouncer at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
Errors-To: bouncer at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
Subject: Unsubscribed (hard bounce)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:31:18 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <484429602477203849669 at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:58:22 -0400
From: Jonathan Shaw <jls4 at cwru dot edu>
Subject: Re: question about subscriber-only lists
>For subscriber-only lists, does the address matching proceed only on
>the From: header, or is there a setting to allow posts where either
>the From: or Reply-To: header matches an address in the subscriber list?
>I didn't find an answer to this in a quick look through the documention.
>Reason I ask is because then subscribers could use a Reply-To: to set
>a consistent return address to cope with having their institution change
>their address on them.
Hopefully, though, the From: address remains the same now as when they
first subscribed. I believe AutoShare does not look at the Reply-To:
address at all. You _can_ configure it to use the MAIL FROM: string (sent
during the SMTP protocol, not part of the text of the message) and/or the
From: header. Personally, I depend on the MAIL FROM: only because I often
change the From: line on purpose, but I still want the messages posted only
from my real address.
-Jonathan {;-)
Visit <http://b62968.cwru.edu/> for a good laugh.
There are 3 kinds of people: Those who make things happen, those who watch
things happen and those who wonder what happened.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:19:11 -0500
From: Paul DuBois <paul at snake dot net>
Subject: Re: question about subscriber-only lists
>>For subscriber-only lists, does the address matching proceed only on
>>the From: header, or is there a setting to allow posts where either
>>the From: or Reply-To: header matches an address in the subscriber list?
>
>>I didn't find an answer to this in a quick look through the documention.
>>Reason I ask is because then subscribers could use a Reply-To: to set
>>a consistent return address to cope with having their institution change
>>their address on them.
>
>Hopefully, though, the From: address remains the same now as when they
>first subscribed. I believe AutoShare does not look at the Reply-To:
>address at all. You _can_ configure it to use the MAIL FROM: string (sent
>during the SMTP protocol, not part of the text of the message) and/or the
>From: header. Personally, I depend on the MAIL FROM: only because I often
>change the From: line on purpose, but I still want the messages posted only
>from my real address.
I don't want the MAIL FROM address, because I provide a web page for
subscribing to my list, and the mail generated from my CGI script has
no relation to the subscriber's address.
The From: address does change. Institutions sometimes modify the way
they send out mail. For instance, a user might have an address of
joe at my.host dot edu, and then the university decides to make addresses
more english-like and starts sending joe's mail as Joe.Blow at my.host dot edu.
Now AutoShare rejects joe's postings. Use of the Reply-To: could help
a little.
--
Paul DuBois
paul at snake dot net
Home Page: http://www.primate.wisc.edu/people/dubois
Software: http://www.primate.wisc.edu/software
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 01:46:40 +0100
Subject: Re: Unsubscribed (hard bounce)
From: "James Berriman" <james at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>OK guys figure this out. A second set of messages apparently was sent by
the bouncer or by someone else. This time those pesky bounced messages were
properly unsubscribed (see below). Could it be that I have set something so
that I get a bounced message even as Autoshare is storing the message to be
"bounce checked?" I don't think anything like that is turned on, but I'll
check. Alice was right "curiouser and curiouser..."
Check the dates. Something odd is happening. The two dates listed in the
text of the first message are off by a whole day! Whatever the header says,
I imagine that the unsubscribe happened before the unresolved bounce.
>Date: 4/15/98 12:10 AM
>From: bouncer
>Text indicates: [] (not subscribed)
>Code indicates: [Sarah_French at hopkins.k12.mn dot us] (not subscribed)
>RFC From is: [Jody_Ouradnik at hopkins.k12.mn dot us] (does not matter)
>RFC To is: [hhsmail at hopkins.k12.mn dot us,] (is a list)
>
>> Return-Path: <>
>> From: Postmaster at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
>> To: bouncer at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
>> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 12:09:22 -0500
>Date: 4/14/98 5:31 PM
>From: bouncer
>Sarah_French at hopkins.k12.mn dot us has been unsubscribed from the njhmail list
due to a hard bounce
>
>Return-Path: <>
>From: Postmaster at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
>To: bouncer at stumail.hopkins.k12.mn dot us
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:31:01 -0500
On a related note:
In cases where EIMS tries to deliver messages for three days, there will
always be some overlap (bounces arriving after the address is unsubscribed
by AutoShare).
It would be nice if AutoShare kept a record of unsubscribed addresses for a
while, so that 'unresolved bounce' messages are not generated in this
particular case.
What do you think, Mikael?
( :-]) James
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 01:56:50 +0100
Subject: Re: question about subscriber-only lists
From: "James Berriman" <james at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
Paul DuBois wrote:
>I don't want the MAIL FROM address, because I provide a web page for
>subscribing to my list, and the mail generated from my CGI script has
>no relation to the subscriber's address.
Have you considered using a mailto: form? (See the examples included with
the AutoShare distribution).
This works well provided your users have a browser which can handle mailto:
forms, and have their browser's mail preferences configured correctly.
This may or may not be appropriate in your case :-)
( :-]) James
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 23:59:31 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: AutoShare 2.2.1b2
Version 2.2.1b2 has been uploaded to
<ftp://ftp.dnai.com/users/m/meh/AutoShare/Beta/>
Mail server accounts for both bounces and mail-backs may now be directed
directly to the Filed Mail folder.
Mail-backs for auto-responses are enabled using the /=mailback token, and
mail-backs for list contributions require the letter H in List Stuff.
The Admin hasn't changed, so the 2.2.1b1 version works fine.
PS: I haven't noticed any Info-Mac announcement for version 2.2, but it has
been up on several sites for some time now.
Date: 15 Apr 98 07:51:36 -0500
From: Chuck Boody <chuck_boody at hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Subject: Re: Unsubscribed (hard bounce)
Good guess James, but wrong. The poster of the bounced message had her =
clock set off by one day. The bounced message came first.....
Chuck
=============
>
>Check the dates. Something odd is happening. The two dates listed in the
>text of the first message are off by a whole day! Whatever the header =
says,
>I imagine that the unsubscribe happened before the unresolved bounce.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:34:02 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: AutoShare 2.2.1b3
Version 2.2.1b3 has been uploaded to
<ftp://ftp.dnai.com/users/m/meh/AutoShare/Beta/>
Jonathan using the unknown accounts feature has reported that bounce
message files directed to the Filed Mail folder apparently not always are
moved to the Bounces folder, but occasionally are bypassed and later
forwarded to him, most likely per the unknown accounts configuration. I
don't know the cause of it at this time; the bounce SMTP envelope recipient
is as it should be, so maybe it's time to run a little Disk First Aid.
I received the CWPro 3.0 version of the Metrowerks compiler in the mail
this late afternoon and decided to install it right away this evening. The
68K and PPC versions of AutoShare, which compiled without a hitch, showed
that the applications now take up less disk space, less memory and launch
faster than when compiled with CWPro2 and CW11. Many Pascal compiler and
library bugs were fixed per the release notes, and I look particularly
forward to testing the 68K version on a 68K box.
The application speed has also improved. Measured on a 7500/100, the
following table compares CWPro3 with CWPro2 and shows the latter in
parentheses:
List contribution 68K application PPC application
10,000 subscribers 19 seconds (27) 6 seconds (7)
40,000 subscribers 73 seconds (93) 25 seconds (32)
2.2.1b3 includes CWPro3 versions of the server applications and also
documention updating the unknown accounts section. As the 2.2.1b1 Admin is
included, you may update directly from 2.2 to 2.2.1b3.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:02:15 +0100
From: Jerry Thompson <jthompson at directhit dot com>
Subject: [Feature Request] Passing Tokens From Emails into Autoshare
Greetings,
Is there a way to pass tokens into an email message? For a web site I'm
developing, users will be able request web articles emailed to them. They
will also be able to send the article to associates.
The reason for passing a token is that I would like to pass the email
address of the person SENDING the email inside of the document being sent
to the new user.
ie.
This message was forwarded to you from ZDNet (http://www.zdnet.com) by
jthompson at directhit dot com.
Perhaps this is where a pre-processor would come in handy. But is it possible?
The feature would allow you to pass a token inside of the body like:
To: retriever at domain dot com
(an EIMS acct with corresponding document folder setup for it).
From: destination_user_email at domain dot com
Subject: article1
Body:
/=passtoken user_requesting_article at domain dot com
The corresponding Autoshare Document (Documents --> Retriever --> article1)
would look like:
/=reply-to webmaster at domain dot com
/=subject Article #1
This document was requested to be sent to you by /passtoken
A similar feature may help to tie Autoshare into web applications. It may
be overly complicating an issue or not even needed. But it may also be
helpful.
Jerry.
________________________________________________
Jerry Thompson jthompson at directhit dot com
MIS/Webmaster macguru at directhit dot com
NDPC/PP List Management
- "I have seen a glimpse of the future... It's name is Macintosh."
- "Off the keyboard, thru the router, over the bridge, nothing but net!"
Date: 16 Apr 98 11:52:18 -0500
From: Chuck Boody <chuck_boody at hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Subject: Reply to list and sender?
If a list is set to reply to the list reply goes to the list and reply to =
all still goes only to the list. =
When you set the list to reply to sender a reply goes just to the sender, =
but a reply to all goes to the sender and the list. =
I'd like to be able to set up Autoshare so a reply goes to the list, but a =
reply to all goes to the list and the sender. =
Is this possible?
=
Chuck Boody
ISD 270
=============
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 19:03:20 +0100
Subject: Re: Reply to list and sender?
From: "James Berriman" <james at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>If a list is set to reply to the list reply goes to the list and reply to
all still goes only to the list.
>When you set the list to reply to sender a reply goes just to the sender,
but a reply to all goes to the sender and the list.
>I'd like to be able to set up Autoshare so a reply goes to the list, but a
reply to all goes to the list and the sender.
>Is this possible?
> Chuck Boody
Chuck, there's an IETF working group (DRUMS) busy trying to update rfc 822.
The DRUMS list has been bogged down in a long tortuous debate about
redefining Reply-to: for the last couple of weeks, with no end in sight :-(
At this point in time, I don't think there's an effective way to do what you
want. Unless, of course, someone knows better?
(Where did I get that punchline? "That's Life", perhaps?).
( :-]) James
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 18:23:44 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Reply to list and sender?
At 11:52 -0500 16/4/1998, Chuck Boody wrote:
>I'd like to be able to set up Autoshare so a reply goes to the list,
>but a reply to all goes to the list and the sender.
>Is this possible?
No, not in Eudora. That would require the To: field of the list
contribution to be the sender (and the Reply-To: to be the list).
From: jose.accino at ice.uma dot es (Jose A. Accino)
Subject: Getting the List name on subject field
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:56:57 +0000
Is there a way to get the name of a list (or a given text, for that
matter) automatically added as a prefix to the SUBJECT field?
I'm getting such a request from some users and I'm not sure if
that could be done in some way with AS. At least, I can't see any
way to do it within the Admin, or maybe I'm missing something.
JA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Alfonso Accino jose.accino at ice.uma dot es
I.C.E. Universidad de Malaga http://www.ice.uma.es/
Bulevar Louis Pasteur, s/n Phone: +34-5-213 29 44
29071 MALAGA Fax: +34-5-213 29 45
España/Spain
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:01:20 +0200
From: Jan Koudelka <koudelka at appleklub dot cz>
Subject: Another request
What about having two different footers, one for mail mode, and another for
digest mode?
HOnza
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:03:15 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Getting the List name on subject field
At 08:56 +0000 17/4/1998, Jose A. Accino wrote:
>Is there a way to get the name of a list (or a given text, for that
>matter) automatically added as a prefix to the SUBJECT field?
In the documentation, find
Running the server
Running a list server
Miscellaneous features
Subject prefixes
>I'm getting such a request from some users and I'm not sure if
>that could be done in some way with AS. At least, I can't see any
>way to do it within the Admin, or maybe I'm missing something.
In the Admin, choose Lists from the Configuration menu (Command-L), select
the list to your left, click the List button and find the Prefix field to
your lower right.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:14:46 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Another request
At 13:01 +0200 17/4/1998, Jan Koudelka wrote:
>What about having two different footers, one for mail mode, and another
>for digest mode?
To make digest headers and footers different, use HeaderD.<list> and
FooterD.<list> documents in addition to the standard Header.<list> and
Footer.<list> documents.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:31:12 +0200
From: Jan Koudelka <koudelka at appleklub dot cz>
Subject: Re: Another request
>To make digest headers and footers different, use HeaderD.<list> and
>FooterD.<list> documents in addition to the standard Header.<list> and
>Footer.<list> documents.
Hmm, now, when I see it in your mail, I remember that I do not see it first
time... Thanks for reminding.
BTW, Remote Admin for versin 2.2 will be available probably at the begining
of May. Sorry for being so slow, I'm really swamped with work last few
days...
HOnza
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:49:14 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Another request
At 13:31 +0200 17/4/1998, Jan Koudelka wrote:
>BTW, Remote Admin for versin 2.2 will be available probably at the begining
>of May. Sorry for being so slow, I'm really swamped with work last few
>days...
Thanks! Look forward to using it.
Date: 17 Apr 98 09:07:24 -0500
From: Chuck Boody <chuck_boody at hopkins.k12.mn dot us>
Subject: RE: Getting the List name on subject field
On the "List" page in the Administrator there is a Prefix box where you =
can type in what you want. It is mentioned in the documentation too, and =
that can give you the detail.
Chuck Boody
ISD 270
=============
jose.accino wrote:
>Is there a way to get the name of a list (or a given text, for that
>matter) automatically added as a prefix to the SUBJECT field?
>
>I'm getting such a request from some users and I'm not sure if
>that could be done in some way with AS. At least, I can't see any
>way to do it within the Admin, or maybe I'm missing something.
>
>JA.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
>Jose Alfonso Accino jose.accino at ice.uma dot =
es
>I.C.E. Universidad de Malaga http://www.ice.uma.=
es/
>Bulevar Louis Pasteur, s/n Phone: +34-5-213 29 =
44
>29071 MALAGA Fax: +34-5-213 29 =
45
>España/Spain
>
>
>
>** The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
>** <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Return-Path: <bounce at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>Received: from frutiger.staffs.ac.uk (194.66.172.10) by hopkins.k12.mn.us =
with
> ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.0); Fri, 17 Apr 1998 02:56:41 -0500
>Received: from ice.uma.es (150.214.54.4) by frutiger.staffs.ac.uk with =
ESMTP
> (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1b5); Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:51:02 +0100
>Received: from [150.214.54.7] by ice.uma.es
> with SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.2); Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:56:57 +=
0000
>X-Sender: Jose.Accino at correo.ice.uma dot es
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>To: autoshare-talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk (Subscribers of autoshare-talk)
>From: jose.accino at ice.uma dot es (Jose A. Accino)
>Subject: Getting the List name on subject field
>Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:56:57 +0000
>Reply-To: autoshare-talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk (Subscribers of autoshare-=
talk)
>Errors-To: bounce at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk (AutoShare bounce account)
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:autoshare-talk-on at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:autoshare-talk-off at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>X-List-Digest: =
><mailto:autoshare at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk?body=set%20autoshare-talk%=
20digest>
>List-Archive: =
><mailto:autoshare at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk?body=index%20autoshare-talk>
>List-Post: <mailto:autoshare-talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>List-Owner: listmaster at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk (James Berriman)
>List-Help: <http://www.dnai.com/~meh/autoshare/>
>List-Software: AutoShare 2.2.1b3 by Mikael Hansen
>X-To-Unsubscribe: autoshare at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk, body: unsub autoshare-=
talk
>Message-Id: <483441654804798529012 at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:53:18 -0700
From: Camelot Administrator <camelot.admin at lmco dot com>
Subject: Monitoring Attachments to lists...
Does Autoshare support block attachments to a list which are over a certain
size? I want to allow small attachments, but large attachments are killing
the server (and annoying a lot of people), so I'd like to cause those to
bounce.
Regards,
Bill
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bill Catambay, Software Developer, Webmaster |
| Lockheed Martin, Enterprise Information Systems, Sunnyvale, CA |
| WORK -> mailto:bill.m.catambay at lmco dot com |
| HOME -> mailto:bill at catambay dot com |
| |
| Pascal Central -> http://www.catambay.com/pascal-central |
| Macintosh Guild -> http://www.rahul.net/rrk/lmms/mac |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
From: John Schmit <complab at prescott dot edu>
Subject: Admin 2.2 error
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:45:20 +0000
I keep getting the FaceSpan extension error when I run AutoShare Admin 2.2.
Every time I launch the admin application it asks for the FaceSpan
extension. But I'm using Autoshare 2.2 and AutoShare Admin 2.2 which
supposedly has this extension built in. Even when I had the 2.1 version of
FaceSpan extension and pointed to it, the admin application gave an error
saying that extention was "missing, would not open, or too old a version."
I have looked for info on this but to no avail. I am runing these on a ppc
6150 with EIMS 1.2. Can anyone help?
- john schmit / complab at prescott.edu / Prescott College http://www.prescott dot edu
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:17:23 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Monitoring Attachments to lists...
At 08:53 -0700 20/4/1998, Camelot Administrator wrote:
>Does Autoshare support block attachments to a list which are over a certain
>size? I want to allow small attachments, but large attachments are killing
>the server (and annoying a lot of people), so I'd like to cause those to
>bounce.
AutoShare can be configured to block (forward to listmaster rather than
being posted) messages, whose lines (including raw attachments lines, if
any) exceed a given number. See the Lines field in the List window in the
Admin.
A BinHex line for instance is around 65 characters, so a 4K attachment size
divided by 65 lines would be around 60 lines. Then add x number of lines
for the message header and body.
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:29:42 -0700
From: Gary Szabo <gszabo at centralia.ctc dot edu>
Subject: Re:Admin 2.2 error
At 11:45 AM +0000 4/20/98, John Schmit wrote:
>I keep getting the FaceSpan extension error when I run AutoShare Admin 2.2.
>Every time I launch the admin application it asks for the FaceSpan
>extension. But I'm using Autoshare 2.2 and AutoShare Admin 2.2 which
>supposedly has this extension built in. Even when I had the 2.1 version of
>FaceSpan extension and pointed to it, the admin application gave an error
>saying that extention was "missing, would not open, or too old a version."
>
>I have looked for info on this but to no avail. I am runing these on a ppc
>6150 with EIMS 1.2. Can anyone help?
Do you have all the QuickTime extensions installed? I found (quite by
accident) that without these present, I got the msg.
GSz