I seem to remember that this was supposedly turned off for lists mail? Or is it something listowners / managers can do? Asking because today a list I am a member of has had email coming through with awfully long URLs with this in the front of the regular URL. Tim Stowell

That is because you have not cleaned up your old customized messages: https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/south-africa.rootsweb.com/settings/templates I removed the offending link. Anne On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 6:39 AM Keith Meintjes <kmeintjes@gmail.com> wrote: > At the bottom of each posting to my list is a link to subscrie and > unsubscribe: > > https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/south-africa > > Sometimes the last /south-africa is not included. > > This link does not work. I get a picture of a bison with a 404 error. > > Keith > -- > +1.248.891.6434 > Michigan, USA (Eastern Time) > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_rootswebpref&d=DwIBaQ&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=ma9Y5Z50el7yruiF4jc71b9ocSxe5qisBdr8jeaOmNM&s=FiEL5QjdrDNeiSKGximMw9Wu0Wk5aqA06SMmb9JtTXQ&e= > Unsubscribe and Archives > https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/listowners > Privacy Statement: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2JWBOdY&d=DwIBaQ&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=ma9Y5Z50el7yruiF4jc71b9ocSxe5qisBdr8jeaOmNM&s=GYnBUA1RBo91oEoFR35Vi9oYS02a_919vCngOwWPmPA&e= Terms and Conditions: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2HDBym9&d=DwIBaQ&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=ma9Y5Z50el7yruiF4jc71b9ocSxe5qisBdr8jeaOmNM&s=hKJTGdNBai9I5xG8zDDSYi-RDHOYIANAo7cFplTaLAI&e= > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

At the bottom of each posting to my list is a link to subscrie and unsubscribe: https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/south-africa Sometimes the last /south-africa is not included. This link does not work. I get a picture of a bison with a 404 error. Keith -- +1.248.891.6434 Michigan, USA (Eastern Time)

Pat, my posts were held up because of that ONE letter! No other reasons, and you showed me what did show up. I deleted that letter and the posts have been going to rootsweb-help since then without getting held up. And I found same thing from my lists I admin - the letter L get held even if it is from subscriber. David Samuelsen On 8/21/2018 3:22 PM, Pat Asher wrote: > At 02:57 PM 8/21/2018, Joan Young wrote: >> I think it HELD (rather than discarded) the message because it came >> from a subscriber to the list. Only non-subscriber mail would be >> discarded outright. > > I agree EXCEPT, how did Mailman know the poster was a subscriber to the > Rootsweb-Help mailing list unless it recognized > rootsweb-help-L@rootsweb.com as an ALIAS for rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com > > > Pat

Pat Asher wrote: > I had one subscriber have a message held specifically > because it was sent to the -L address, and the > notice so indicated. > > As list administrator, your authorization is > requested for the following mailing list posting: > > List: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com > From: <snipped> > Subject: <snipped> > > The message is being held because: > To or cc was not the list, please review > > Then in the spam diagnostics section of the > headers was the rule hit: > X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: implicit-dest The implicit destination when posting to the -L (or -D) version of the mailing list has been the error for well over 18 months (since the previous so called upgrade.) See my post from 2017/01/17: https://lists.rootsweb.com/hyperkitty/list/listowners@rootsweb.com/thread/52 295/ Regards Elmo. -- --Keith Elmo ELDRIDGE --Elmo@aphelia.co.uk --Crookes, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England. --List Administrator of the Essex-UK & Isle-of-Wight mailing lists

Haven't got that, but this morning I received spam purporting to be from eng-liverpool@rootxweb.com (note the X), which I found interesting, and I started receiving list messages with the URLDefense/Proofpoint URLs within them. Goblins? Lynne Lin Duke <dml5481@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Over the last few days I keep getting the following message (with a load of numbers and letters after it). Is anyone else? > >I've sent a copy of one to Anne, awaiting a reply. > >Lin > > >-------- Forwarded Message -------- >Subject: Uncaught bounce notification >Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 04:10:14 -0600 >From: rwmailinglists@ancestry.com<mailto:rwmailinglists@ancestry.com> >To: Lin Duke <dml5481@hotmail.com><mailto:dml5481@hotmail.com> > > >The attached message was received as a bounce, but either the bounce format >was not recognized, or no member addresses could be extracted from it. This >mailing list has been configured to send all unrecognized bounce messages to >the list administrator(s). >

I haven't received one (so far) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 23/08/2018 13:03, Lin Duke wrote: > Over the last few days I keep getting the following message (with a load of numbers and letters after it). Is anyone else? > > I've sent a copy of one to Anne, awaiting a reply. > > Lin

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:22:58 +0100, Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> wrote: > At 02:57 PM 8/21/2018, Joan Young wrote: >> I think it HELD (rather than discarded) the message because it came >> from a subscriber to the list. Only non-subscriber mail would be >> discarded outright. > > I agree EXCEPT, how did Mailman know the poster was a subscriber to the > Rootsweb-Help mailing list unless it recognized > rootsweb-help-L@rootsweb.com as an ALIAS for rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com See my earlier reply, plus an additional comment that mail delivery aliasing is done by a separate piece of software /before/ the email gets to mailman which, apparently, has not been told of the aliasing. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk>

At 02:57 PM 8/21/2018, Joan Young wrote: >I think it HELD (rather than discarded) the message because it came >from a subscriber to the list. Only non-subscriber mail would be >discarded outright. I agree EXCEPT, how did Mailman know the poster was a subscriber to the Rootsweb-Help mailing list unless it recognized rootsweb-help-L@rootsweb.com as an ALIAS for rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com Pat

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:49:52 +0100, Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> wrote: > At 02:57 PM 8/21/2018, Joan Young wrote: >> I think it HELD (rather than discarded) the message because it came >> from a subscriber to the list. Only non-subscriber mail would be >> discarded outright. > > I agree EXCEPT, how did Mailman know the poster was a subscriber to the > Rootsweb-Help mailing list unless it recognized > rootsweb-help-L@rootsweb.com as an ALIAS for rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com That's actually very easy to explain. The aliasing is done in the mail delivery system that pushes it to the rootsweb-help list. However, the mailman software has not been told that it has a alias so it throws a wobbly not about list membership but about the list name (as it knows it) not being in the headers. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk>

At 02:57 PM 8/21/2018, Joan Young wrote: >I think it HELD (rather than discarded) the message because it came >from a subscriber to the list. Only non-subscriber mail would be >discarded outright. I agree EXCEPT, how did Mailman know the poster was a subscriber to the Rootsweb-Help mailing list unless it recognized rootsweb-help-L@rootsweb.com as an ALIAS for rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com Pat

I think it HELD (rather than discarded) the message because it came from a subscriber to the list. Only non-subscriber mail would be discarded outright. Joan Young jyoung6180@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> To: Listowners list for Rootsweb list admins and moderators <listowners@rootsweb.com> Cc: Joan Young <jyoung6180@aol.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 21, 2018 2:06 pm Subject: Re: [LO] Re: the "L" in the email address? At 01:53 PM 8/21/2018, Joan Young via LISTOWNERS wrote: >So the -L made MailMan THINK the LIST address was not in the To or >CC addresses all because it was NOT ... the -L address was. Thanks for summarizing in an such a clear and concise way :) However, Mailman is apparently recognizing the -L (and presumably the -D) address as an alias, because it held the message rather than rejecting as not at this address, and sent the held message notice to the listowner, me. Pat

If I'm not mistaken the "-L' designation is for the old maillist system from Rootsweb. I believe that you sent an e-mail to the maillist designating if you wanted to subscribe to the list format or the digest format ("-D"). When subscribing or unsubscribing you'd send a subscribe or unsubscribe e-mail to <listname>-L-request@rootsweb.com or <listname>- D-request@rootsweb.com. Terry On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:03 PM W David Samuelsen <dsam52@sampubco.com> wrote: > This is one I kept getting and it turned out the "-L" is no longer > recognized. > > Told subscriber to drop it the "-L" and everything went smooth since then. > > David Samuelsen > > On 8/21/2018 7:04 AM, Pat Asher wrote: > > I had one subscriber have a message held specifically because it was > > sent to the -L address, and the notice so indicated. > > > > As list administrator, your authorization is requested for the > > following mailing list posting: > > > > List: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com > > From: <snipped> > > Subject: <snipped> > > > > The message is being held because: > > > > To or cc was not the list, please review > > > > Then in the spam diagnostics section of the headers was the rule hit: > > X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: implicit-dest > > > > > > Pat A. > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe and Archives > https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/listowners > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

At 01:53 PM 8/21/2018, Joan Young via LISTOWNERS wrote: >So the -L made MailMan THINK the LIST address was not in the To or >CC addresses all because it was NOT ... the -L address was. Thanks for summarizing in an such a clear and concise way :) However, Mailman is apparently recognizing the -L (and presumably the -D) address as an alias, because it held the message rather than rejecting as not at this address, and sent the held message notice to the listowner, me. Pat

This is one I kept getting and it turned out the "-L" is no longer recognized. Told subscriber to drop it the "-L" and everything went smooth since then. David Samuelsen On 8/21/2018 7:04 AM, Pat Asher wrote: > I had one subscriber have a message held specifically because it was > sent to the -L address, and the notice so indicated. > > As list administrator, your authorization is requested for the > following mailing list posting: > >     List: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com >     From:   <snipped> >     Subject: <snipped> > > The message is being held because: > >     To or cc was not the list, please review > > Then in the spam diagnostics section of the headers was the rule hit: > X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: implicit-dest > > > Pat A.

So the -L made MailMan THINK the LIST address was not in the To or CC addresses all because it was NOT ... the -L address was. Joan Young jyoung6180@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> To: Listowners list for Rootsweb list admins and moderators <listowners@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 21, 2018 11:23 am Subject: [LO] Re: the "L" in the email address? At 10:43 AM 8/21/2018, Mary Richardson wrote: >I don't think it was held because of the -L. Looks like the sender >bcc'd the list address, making it an implicit destination, which is verboten. > >Mary Not true. Here is the portion of the headers regarding the addressee: Received: from 174-23-156-211.slkc.qwest.net ([174.23.156.211]:52140 helo=[192.168.0.76]) by srv12.thehostservers.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <snipped>) id 1fgKm7-000few-BS for RootsWeb-Help-L@rootsweb.com; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 19:04:07 -0700 To: Rootsweb-Help <RootsWeb-Help-L@rootsweb.com> From: <snipped> Subject: <snipped> Message-ID: <0b589bdb-1ed6-34f4-582c-219d2322c3f9@snipped> Pat A. >At 09:04 AM 8/21/2018, Pat Asher wrote: >>At 09:14 PM 8/20/2018, Joan Young via LISTOWNERS wrote: >>>I'd ask to see the held message (have them forward it to you). I >>>also had one like that where the poster sent to -L and it was held >>>but that was NOT the reason it was held. The held message >>>explanation said it was held because the poster posted from a >>>non-subscribed address (although they were subbed under an alternate address). >> >>I had one subscriber have a message held specifically because it >>was sent to the -L address, and the notice so indicated. >> >>As list administrator, your authorization is requested for the >>following mailing list posting: >> >> List: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com >> From: <snipped> >> Subject: <snipped> >> >>The message is being held because: >> >> To or cc was not the list, please review >> >>Then in the spam diagnostics section of the headers was the rule hit: >>X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: implicit-dest >> >> >>Pat A. > >_______________________________________________ >Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >Unsubscribe and Archives >https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/listowners >Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: >https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal >RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/listowners Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:23:24 +0100, Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> wrote: > At 10:43 AM 8/21/2018, Mary Richardson wrote: >> I don't think it was held because of the -L. Looks like the sender >> bcc'd the list address, making it an implicit destination, which is >> verboten. >> >> Mary > > Not true. Here is the portion of the headers regarding the addressee: > > Received: from 174-23-156-211.slkc.qwest.net ([174.23.156.211]:52140 > helo=[192.168.0.76]) > by srv12.thehostservers.com with esmtpsa > (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) > (Exim 4.91) > (envelope-from <snipped>) > id 1fgKm7-000few-BS > for RootsWeb-Help-L@rootsweb.com; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 19:04:07 > -0700 > To: Rootsweb-Help <RootsWeb-Help-L@rootsweb.com> > From: <snipped> > Subject: <snipped> > Message-ID: <0b589bdb-1ed6-34f4-582c-219d2322c3f9@snipped> In that case (for Anne!) it's probably that rootsweb-help and rootsweb-help-l are being treated as aliases for incoming email purposes but are not both being allowed for in the 'implicit destination' test. I can handle symptoms but don't ask me for a cure :-) Malcolm. >> At 09:04 AM 8/21/2018, Pat Asher wrote: >>> At 09:14 PM 8/20/2018, Joan Young via LISTOWNERS wrote: >>>> I'd ask to see the held message (have them forward it to you). I also >>>> had one like that where the poster sent to -L and it was held but >>>> that was NOT the reason it was held. The held message explanation >>>> said it was held because the poster posted from a non-subscribed >>>> address (although they were subbed under an alternate address). >>> >>> I had one subscriber have a message held specifically because it was >>> sent to the -L address, and the notice so indicated. >>> >>> As list administrator, your authorization is requested for the >>> following mailing list posting: >>> >>> List: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com >>> From: <snipped> >>> Subject: <snipped> >>> >>> The message is being held because: >>> >>> To or cc was not the list, please review >>> >>> Then in the spam diagnostics section of the headers was the rule hit: >>> X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: implicit-dest >>> >>> >>> Pat A. -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk>

At 10:43 AM 8/21/2018, Mary Richardson wrote: >I don't think it was held because of the -L. Looks like the sender >bcc'd the list address, making it an implicit destination, which is verboten. > >Mary Not true. Here is the portion of the headers regarding the addressee: Received: from 174-23-156-211.slkc.qwest.net ([174.23.156.211]:52140 helo=[192.168.0.76]) by srv12.thehostservers.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <snipped>) id 1fgKm7-000few-BS for RootsWeb-Help-L@rootsweb.com; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 19:04:07 -0700 To: Rootsweb-Help <RootsWeb-Help-L@rootsweb.com> From: <snipped> Subject: <snipped> Message-ID: <0b589bdb-1ed6-34f4-582c-219d2322c3f9@snipped> Pat A. >At 09:04 AM 8/21/2018, Pat Asher wrote: >>At 09:14 PM 8/20/2018, Joan Young via LISTOWNERS wrote: >>>I'd ask to see the held message (have them forward it to you). I >>>also had one like that where the poster sent to -L and it was held >>>but that was NOT the reason it was held. The held message >>>explanation said it was held because the poster posted from a >>>non-subscribed address (although they were subbed under an alternate address). >> >>I had one subscriber have a message held specifically because it >>was sent to the -L address, and the notice so indicated. >> >>As list administrator, your authorization is requested for the >>following mailing list posting: >> >> List: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com >> From: <snipped> >> Subject: <snipped> >> >>The message is being held because: >> >> To or cc was not the list, please review >> >>Then in the spam diagnostics section of the headers was the rule hit: >>X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: implicit-dest >> >> >>Pat A. > >_______________________________________________ >Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >Unsubscribe and Archives >https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/listowners >Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: >https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal >RootsWeb community

I don't think it was held because of the -L. Looks like the sender bcc'd the list address, making it an implicit destination, which is verboten. Mary At 09:04 AM 8/21/2018, Pat Asher wrote: >At 09:14 PM 8/20/2018, Joan Young via LISTOWNERS wrote: >>I'd ask to see the held message (have them forward it to you). I >>also had one like that where the poster sent to -L and it was held >>but that was NOT the reason it was held. The held message >>explanation said it was held because the poster posted from a >>non-subscribed address (although they were subbed under an alternate address). > >I had one subscriber have a message held specifically because it was >sent to the -L address, and the notice so indicated. > >As list administrator, your authorization is requested for the >following mailing list posting: > > List: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com > From: <snipped> > Subject: <snipped> > >The message is being held because: > > To or cc was not the list, please review > >Then in the spam diagnostics section of the headers was the rule hit: >X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: implicit-dest > > >Pat A.

At 09:14 PM 8/20/2018, Joan Young via LISTOWNERS wrote: >I'd ask to see the held message (have them forward it to you). I >also had one like that where the poster sent to -L and it was held >but that was NOT the reason it was held. The held message >explanation said it was held because the poster posted from a >non-subscribed address (although they were subbed under an alternate address). I had one subscriber have a message held specifically because it was sent to the -L address, and the notice so indicated. As list administrator, your authorization is requested for the following mailing list posting: List: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com From: <snipped> Subject: <snipped> The message is being held because: To or cc was not the list, please review Then in the spam diagnostics section of the headers was the rule hit: X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: implicit-dest Pat A.