These are likely due to disks filling up at ssz (due to SirCam).

Thanks,

-Brian

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Reese wrote:

> No, but I received a couple of these:
>
>  >From: CDR Hub Account <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  >Approved: LISTMEMBER CPUNK
>  >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >Precedence: bulk
>  >X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> With a completely blank message body.
>
> Once again, with full headers:
>
>  >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  >Received: from slack.lne.com (dns.lne.com [209.157.136.81])
>  >    by flex.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f6QDJKC04445
>  >    for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 03:19:20 -1000 (HST)
>  >Received: (from majordom@localhost)
>  >    by slack.lne.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f6QDDGc31813
>  >    for cypherpunks-goingout; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 06:13:16 -0700
>  >X-Authentication-Warning: slack.lne.com: majordom set sender to
>  >[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
>  >Received: (from cpunk@localhost) by slack.lne.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id
>  >  f6QDDFu31791 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 06:13:15 -0700
>  >Received: from hq.pro-ns.net (hq.pro-ns.net [208.200.182.20]) by
>  >  slack.lne.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f6QDDEx31781 for
>  >  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 06:13:14 -0700
>  >Received: (from cpunks@localhost) by hq.pro-ns.net (8.11.3/8.11.1) id
>  >  f6QDDJR83218 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 08:13:19 -0500 (CDT)
>  >Received: from einstein.ssz.com (einstein.ssz.com [204.96.2.99]) by
>  >  hq.pro-ns.net (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6QDCh182868 for
>  >  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 08:12:44 -0500 (CDT)
>  >Received: (from cpunks@localhost) by einstein.ssz.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id
>  >  IAA01203 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 08:18:58
>  >  -0500
>  >Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 08:18:58 -0500
>  >From: CDR Hub Account <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  >Approved: LISTMEMBER CPUNK
>  >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >Precedence: bulk
>  >X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >X-UIDL: Fh[!!"R*"!;),!!F0~"!
>
> Eric, is this also because of the Sircam junque?
>
> Reese

Reply via email to