(Posted on Jory's behalf to help things work better.)
People, we know there's problems - PLEASE, Please don't keep posting
again and again with different subjects, the same post. Your posts are
GETTING THROUGH. And it confuses people as to which post you want us to
Just post once, accept that you'll quite possibly get a (spurious)
error message, and expect that likely as not the mail server will post
your message twice anyways (We got prollems, but sending MORE messages
won't do anything but make this worse, changing the subject line will
just cause another error message to come to you - if you want umpteen
error messages & a annoyed bunch of engineers on the PICList, so be it
CC'ing this to Jory for his info, hoping it gets solved soon <G>
At 20:34 02/08/99 -0800, Mark Willis wrote:
> People, we know there's problems - PLEASE, Please don't keep posting
>again and again with different subjects, the same post. Your posts are
i don't remember the exact command, but there is a command you can send to
the list server which enables that your own messages get sent back to you
(by default this is disabled). as long as this is going like it does, you
might want to enable this option -- then you get a confirmation that your
message got through despite the "rejected" messages.
At 09:48 PM 2/8/99 -0800, you wrote:
>At 20:34 02/08/99 -0800, Mark Willis wrote:
>> People, we know there's problems - PLEASE, Please don't keep posting
>>again and again with different subjects, the same post. Your posts are
>i don't remember the exact command, but there is a command you can send to
>the list server which enables that your own messages get sent back to you
>(by default this is disabled). as long as this is going like it does, you
>might want to enable this option -- then you get a confirmation that your
>message got through despite the "rejected" messages.
It's SET PICLIST REPRO
|Here is a portion of the PIC list confirmation notice I received when I
As seen below, the command would be "SET PICLIST REPRO" or "SET PICLIST
You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF PICLIST"
to MITVMA.MIT.EDU (or LISTSERVMITVMA.BITNET). You can also LISTSERV
LISTSERV how you want it to confirm the receipt of messages you send
the list. If you do not trust the system, send a "SET PICLIST
command and LISTSERV will send you a copy of your own messages, so
you can see that the message was distributed and did not get damaged
the way. After a while you may find that this is getting
especially if your mail program does not tell you that the message
from you when it informs you that new mail has arrived from PICLIST.
you send a "SET PICLIST ACK NOREPRO" command, LISTSERV will mail you
short acknowledgement instead, which will look different in your
directory. With most mail programs you will know immediately that this
an acknowledgement you can read later. Finally, you can turn
acknowledgements completely with "SET PICLIST NOACK NOREPRO".
Following instructions from the list owner, your subscription
have been set to "MIME" rather than the usual LISTSERV defaults. For
information about subscription options, send a "QUERY PICLIST" command
MITVMA.MIT.EDU (or LISTSERVMITVMA.BITNET). LISTSERV
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> I don't remember the exact command, but there is a command you can
> send to the list server which enables that your own messages get sent
> back to you (by default this is disabled).
As others have said, SET PICLIST REPRO
But this must be sent to the listserver, *not* the list. What's the
bet we get half a dozen postings of this to the list?
> as long as this is going like it does, you might want to enable this
> option -- then you get a confirmation that your message got through
> despite the "rejected" messages.
I see no reason whatsoever to do so. As best I can see, *No-one* is
getting "rejected" messages, they are *already* getting *confirmatory*
What is so absolutely, awfully infuriating about the problem is the
stubborn refusal of people to *read* the messages they get. They look
at them briefly and presume, but don't actually read them. That said,
it's understandable given the awful "block" (Justified) format of the
message, 8 or 9 solid lines of apparently conflicting information.
You may actually receive either or *both* of two sorts of message,
*neither* of which makes any suggestion you should post again!
The error-message from the list-server *DOES NOT SAY* that your
message wasn't transferred, or didn't "get through". Those who actually
*read* it find what it actually says is that your posting was received
by the list-server *more than once* and was distributed the first time.
Of course, you didn«t post it more than once to start with, so it was
obviously not your fault, but must have been an "echo" somewhere and of
course this matter is still under investigation. The list is telling
you it has a *safety feature* to prevent messages being sent out more
Therefore, as it *has* distributed it already, you shouldn«t post it
*again*. This message goes on to say if you *really, really, really*
want to subject the list to *extra* copies of your posting, you have to
change it around to get past its protective function. But you *don«t*
want to do this!
The second sort of message says that a posting couldn«t be delivered
somewhere, *because the recipient no longer exists*.
This message is *not* from the listserver, but from some long-forsaken
spot in the wilds of the Internet, not even remotely connected with the
listserver. It's impossible your message would need to stop off at this
site to arrive at the listserver, so it's obviously been passed on and
*everyone else* on the list has received the posting, so you don«t need
to send it again.
Not only that, but the message is telling you explicitly that no
matter *how many* times you send, it will *never* get to this particular
recipient because ... they no longer exist! It«s not fair to spam the
rest of the list just to test that out.
At 00:03 02/10/99 +1000, Paul B. Webster VK2BZC wrote:
>Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> I don't remember the exact command, but there is a command you can
>> send to the >>> list server <<< which enables that your own messages get
> But this must be sent to the listserver, *not* the list. What's the
>bet we get half a dozen postings of this to the list?
haven't seen a single one, so far :)
> I see no reason whatsoever to do so.
so feel free not to do so. i have it set up like that because i like it.
and i don't see how this could possibly bother anyone.
> Therefore, as it *has* distributed it already, you shouldn«t post it
i guess i never posted twice to the list, did i?
i may have sent one or another message to both the list and the author to
whom i replied though, because i use the "reply to all" function in order
to get the name of the person to whom i respond in the message (as above),
and i may have forgotten to delete the additional recipient once in a
while. sorry for that, if that's the case and it bothered you.
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> But this must be sent to the listserver, *not* the list. What's the
>> bet we get half a dozen postings of this to the list?
> haven't seen a single one, so far :)
Now *that* worries me! Suggests no-one, or no-one who actually needs
to, reads messages entitled "PICLIST Administrativa"! :)
(Regarding SET PICLIST REPRO)
> so feel free not to do so. I have it set up like that because I like
> it. And I don't see how this could possibly bother anyone.
I have no problem with that whatsoever. My point was simply that the
occurrence of these spurious "delivery error" messages is in no way,
shape or form, an indication of any shortcoming of the listserver in
The listserver and the whole forwarding structure is in fact doing
absolutely fine, distributing the list messages with the utmost
reliability. Whilst the listserver may be *generating* supervisory
messages, all the "delivery error" messages are *caused* by an
infinitessimal minority of dysfunctional (but possibly deliberately)
systems which are *quite* peripheral to the orderly distribution of the
The point is then that nothing about the "delivery error" messages
indicates *any* need for reassurance, temporary *or* long-standing, that
posted messages are getting through the list. Correctly seen, they are
themselves temporary acknowledgements of messages passing correctly.
You or anyone may certainly choose to SET PICLIST REPRO for your
curiousity and it certainly bothers no-one, but the "delivery error"
messages should play *no* part in that decision. That's all. (Whew! :)
> I guess I never posted twice to the list, did I?
I made, nor wished to make, no suggestion that Gerhard did any such
Pointless it likely is, as I suspect new users or new posters
are probably too single-minded on their current problem to read very
much in the way of how-to.s or read-me.s, but I wished to clarify the
true significance of the messages under discussion and to say "Don't
Panic!", the list is working 100% effectively and correctly, there is no
need whatsoever to take any evasive or corrective action, just
understand what they mean, and then do no more than delete them.
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999
, 2000 only
- New search...