----- Original Message ----- > > On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote: > > > Looks like parts of the received like are still there, though > > butchered and mashed in (most likely in a non-RFC compliant > > manner) with the one added by 'bulk_maler v1.13' (great name for > > the mailer, btw, sets off my spammy sense something fierce). > > You seem to be new here. > > bulk_mailer was something used back in the day to workaround > limitations in sendmail for those people operating majordomo (and > those using smail etc). it broke the chunks into something that > sendmail would then allocate multiple processes to. most other mail > subsystems can handle the multiple-rcpts in different manners. > > while it may 'feel' spammy to you, it's certainly not. > > a simple google of "majordomo and bulk_mailer" should give you a good > idea of what's going on. > > there were a lot of other mail systems that served to help integrate > and interoperate back in the day, including qmailer, smail, etc that > all attempted to replace sendmail, including providing the uucp > interaction necessary for those behind dialup. > > either way, please try to keep the feedback off-list for now as we > undergo this transition. It's hard to move a large list like this > without trouble. I've been party to many such list moves in the > past and they usually have all sorts of trouble. > > adm...@nanog.org is the right place for your feedback right now. > > - Jared >
Feeling a bit of Déjà vu as I deployed bulk_mailer for the NANOG list back in November of 1996. It used sendmail+bulk_mailer for delivery until March of 1999 when we transitioned to Postfix. It was transitioned again in April 2008 to Exim and Mailman. Unfortunately, my memory is a bit hazy on whether there were any specific issues with bulk_mailer that caused the switch to Postfix. My main concern with the bulk_mailer code is that it hasn't been touched in over a decade -- ftp://cs.utk.edu/pub/moore/bulk_mailer I've have some concerns with AMS based on my experience with the IETF mailing list. It has had ongoing issues with out-of-sequence delivery. Based on the Received headers, it's seems pretty clear the re-ordering is occurring internal to the AMS servers. It appears they may be trying something different with the NANOG list as the IETF list does not employ bulk_mailer. -Larry