Apparently the list manager automatically forwards any mail with unsubscribe in the subject to debian-...-request now? Arrghh! please see the body of the message below, which was misrouted... ----- Forwarded message from firstname.lastname@example.org ----- From: email@example.com Subject: CONFIRM u11181931135315 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org You have requested that the following address: <snip: unsubscription details> A copy of the (un)subcription request appears below. In the event that you did not send a request to (un)subscribe, the headers of the message may help you discover who sent the request. If you are unable to subscribe to our lists through this mechanism please don't hesitate to contact email@example.com directly. >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:30:55 -0500 >From: Brendan Cully <firstname.lastname@example.org> >To: Debian Users <email@example.com> >Subject: [OT] getting automatically unsubscribed from debian lists >Message-ID: <20001118203054.I9107@xanadu.kublai.com> >Mail-Followup-To: Debian Users <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="f+W+jCU1fRNres8c" >Content-Disposition: inline >User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i >X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.0-test11 i686 > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Disposition: inline > >Hi, > >it has happened a couple of times over the past several months that my >mail server has, for reasons beyond my control, gone down for a few >hours. Normally this wouldn't be too big a deal since I have a backup >MX which queues everything for me. > >But this backup also sends standard sendmail warning messages to >senders if it can't deliver the message to its destination after four >hours. These are received by the debian list processor which then >unsubscribes me from all my debian lists. > >So, my question is, why is this necessary? Can't these informational >'not yet delivered' messages just be ignored by the list software? Is >there some way mailing-list messages can tag themselves so that the >backup MX (which I don't control, btw) doesn't bother to generate >these "bounce" messages? > >It's somewhat annoying, and I can't figure out why it should be >necessary. Of course if the mail were genuinely bouncing it would make >sense, but it's only getting queued... > >This has probably come up before, what's the story? > >Thanks, >Brendan > >Content-Type: application/pgp-signature >Content-Disposition: inline > >Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) >Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > >iD8DBQE6Fy1OIigsijWFMDIRAsjYAJ9xr0vn9mfsSHVGLCXE+cjwEeb7zgCggfIk >5Iy+kHEhi1jdoulQzCTLPiM= >=SX3H > > ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Don't make Godzilla mad!
Description: PGP signature