Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject: Mail Question
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 18:00:17 -0500
I just got back five bounced messages that I sent privately to a
listmember. The weird thing is, they're anywhere from 2 to 3 weeks
old. I was wondering if someone could explain why it would take this
long to bounce.

The only theory I have is that it got there, but his account was
closed before he read them, and they were "dumped". But I don't
think I'm right.

J Roberson
Message no. 2
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mail Question
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 18:32:51 -0500
On Wed, 21 Jul 1993, The Deb Decker wrote:

> I just got back five bounced messages that I sent privately to a
> listmember. The weird thing is, they're anywhere from 2 to 3 weeks
> old. I was wondering if someone could explain why it would take this
> long to bounce.
>
> The only theory I have is that it got there, but his account was
> closed before he read them, and they were "dumped". But I don't
> think I'm right.

Most likely what happened is the person was gone or something, and the
queue, thinking the person might come back, held the mail. After three
weeks, it gave up and bounced it.


{[> Robert A. Hayden ____ hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \ /__ hayden@****.cs.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \/ / aq650@****.INS.CWRU.Edu <]}
{[> #include <std_disclaimer.h> \/ <]}
-=-=-
GEEK CODE v1.0.1: GSS d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Random Thought:

"Sometimes you have to be a harsh cookie editor."
-- Karl
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Mail Question, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.