Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!dual!zehntel!ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!hou3c!ESTEFFERUD@Usc-Ecl.ARPA
From: ESTEFFERUD@Usc-Ecl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.mail.msggroup
Subject: Re: redistribution lists
Message-ID: <590@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-May-84 11:19:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou3c.590
Posted: Thu May 24 11:19:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 21:28:39 EDT
References: <3885@utzoo.UUCP>
Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Lines: 19
To: utzoo!laura@seismo
Cc: MsgGroup@Brl-Mis.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <3885@utzoo.UUCP>

The problem you cite is a very well know one, but knowing about the
problem and eliminating it everywhere in the combined Internet are
two very different things.

We are now at the point where general discussions about the general
case, without attaching specific details such as one of the returned
messages, can only frustrate the lot of us who have been receiving
these complaint messages for a very long time now.  I think it must be
about 3 years ago that we modified the BRL distribution system to
insert a new Return-Path (which you should see in this message) to
direct failure notices back to a BRL-list-maintainer.

So, it seems to me that either you are citing a very old case, or you
have a new case of some different kind of failure.  It would be nice
if you would send the relevant detailed information on your
cataclismic case to postmaster@BRL so they might determine what you
are so vaguely refering to.

Thanks for trying to help!  Stef