NODE ba4f3aa9Questionable instances?
fergp@sytex.com (Paul Ferguson)Wed, 26 May 93 07:16:35 PDT
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:
NODE 5b57d220Questionable instances?
Kyle Jones <postmaster@uunet.uu.net>Wed, 26 May 93 11:05:24 PDT
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
NODE 08532a90Questionable instances?
Kyle Jones <postmaster@uunet.uu.net>Thu, 27 May 93 10:44:09 PDT
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.
NODE 3043cc9fQuestionable instances?
Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>Wed, 26 May 93 11:46:47 PDT
>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