Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/21/84; site styx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!styx!mcb
From: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: Subject: Loop control mechanisms in mailing lists
Message-ID: <19522@styx.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Feb-86 13:20:55 EST
Article-I.D.: styx.19522
Posted: Thu Feb 20 13:20:55 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 08:07:14 EST
References: <1026@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Distribution: net
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, CA
Lines: 56
Summary: What happened here?

Speaking of loop control, we have received FOUR copies of this message
and several others gatewayed to net.mail.headers:

Second of four copies:

> From lognet2!seismo!brl-smoke!smoke!Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Thu Feb 20 10:12:38 PST 1986
> Relay-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/21/84; site styx.UUCP
> Path: styx!lognet2!seismo!brl-smoke!smoke!Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
> >From: Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
> Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
> Subject: Re: Subject: Loop control mechanisms in mailing lists
> Message-ID: <1024@brl-smoke.ARPA>
> Date: 18 Feb 86 01:52:46 GMT
> Date-Received: 19 Feb 86 19:52:10 GMT
> Sender: news@brl-smoke.ARPA
> Lines: 18
> 
> Your solution of appending a postmark on the message is a variant
> of my method (2). This method should have been formulated in
> more general terms, to append some kind of trace information
> on the message. I prefer to put the postmark in the TO field
> for the following reasons:
>
> [remainder deleted...]


Fourth of four copies:

> From lognet2!seismo!brl-smoke!smoke!Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Thu Feb 20 10:05:45 PST 1986
> Relay-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/21/84; site styx.UUCP
> Path: styx!lognet2!seismo!brl-smoke!smoke!Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
> >From: Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
> Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
> Subject: Re: Subject: Loop control mechanisms in mailing lists
> Message-ID: <1026@brl-smoke.ARPA>
> Date: 18 Feb 86 02:34:08 GMT
> Date-Received: 19 Feb 86 19:52:13 GMT
> Sender: news@brl-smoke.ARPA
> Lines: 18
> 
> Your solution of appending a postmark on the message is a variant
> of my method (2). This method should have been formulated in
> more general terms, to append some kind of trace information
> on the message. I prefer to put the postmark in the TO field
> for the following reasons:
> 
> [remainder deleted...]

Note that these have different message-IDs from brl-smoke. 
Since this has occurred before, I assume we can rule out the
possibility of duplicate messages being sent over from the Internet.
Would whomever is doing the gatewaying please look into this?

Michael C. Berch
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb