On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 02:07:05PM +0000, Steve Kennedy wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 10:58:07PM -0500, Rich Lafferty wrote:
>
> > I have a theory as to what happened with that message I sent that was
> > delivered to the list with another message, containing sircam,
> > dangling off the end.
> > I just sent a reply to Lars's post about that message, in that thread,
> > and immediately got back a "queued for moderator approval"
> > message. I'm subscribed as <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, but I had sent
> > both the corrupted message and that reply to Lars from
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> Sounds likely.
>
> > So, my message would have landed in Steve's moderator mailbox. Part of
> > his mail system reacted poorly to the control characters in the
> > message following and didn't separate it out as a separate
> > message. When Steve went to hand-approve the message, he used mutt,
> > which we've found doesn't show the corrupted bits on the end.
>
> Qmail into mbox and mutt ... then piped to majordomo's approve
> mechanism.
>
> > If Steve uses mbox, then it's pretty easy to figure out where the
> > problem might have originated, because that's a particularly mbox-ish
> > sort of corruption.
> > (And just think, if that other message didn't have sircam, we might
> > never have found out that there was a problem.)
>
> Could be, as list-owner get a lot of sircam junk ...
>
> Steve
>
I have followed the thread started by my original message concerning
list processing with continued fascination ! Am I somehow to blame ?
No viruses here :)
--
Regards
Cliff
