I have been notified by an owner that an email I sent today was held for approval.  Turned out it might have been the -L in the email address.  I sent one without it, it went through.  However, I also sent the same message with the L to a couple of lists I admin and it went through fine. Of the -L is stopping emails not to post to the various lists, shouldn't we have been notified so we could let the posters know? -- Pat Connors http://www.connorsgenealogy.com

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). Joan Young jyoung6180@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Pat Connors <nymets11@pacbell.net> To: listowners <listowners@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2018 9:10 pm Subject: [LO] the "L" in the email address? I have been notified by an owner that an email I sent today was held for approval. Turned out it might have been the -L in the email address. I sent one without it, it went through. However, I also sent the same message with the L to a couple of lists I admin and it went through fine. Of the -L is stopping emails not to post to the various lists, shouldn't we have been notified so we could let the posters know? -- Pat Connors http://www.connorsgenealogy.com _______________________________________________Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebprefUnsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/listownersPrivacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blogRootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

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.

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 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

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>

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:30:29 +0100, Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> wrote: > 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 I can confirm this issue is ongoing having had an email today to <uk-military-l@rootsweb.com> correctly delivered to the uk-military list but then held by mailman because no header contained <uk-military@rootsweb.com> Definitely one for Anne to chase. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk>

Just tell your subscribers to edit their address books It took me three or four minutes to do Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 30/08/2018 17:25, Malcolm Austen wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:30:29 +0100, Malcolm Austen > <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> wrote: > >> 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 > > I can confirm this issue is ongoing having had an email today to > <uk-military-l@rootsweb.com> correctly delivered to the uk-military list > but then held by mailman because no header contained > <uk-military@rootsweb.com> > > Definitely one for Anne to chase. > > Malcolm.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 18:59:19 +0100, Nivard Ovington <ovington.one@gmail.com> wrote: > Just tell your subscribers to edit their address books That's just a work-around Nivard. Rootsweb need to decide if they are aliases and then either treat them so everywhere or nowhere. > It took me three or four minutes to do And how any others don't understand and don't work out what to do, and then someone may wake up in 6 months time and encounter the problem. It a rootsweb issue and they will, I hope, eventually, jump one way or the other. Malcolm. > On 30/08/2018 17:25, Malcolm Austen wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:30:29 +0100, Malcolm Austen >> <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> wrote: >> >>> 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 >> I can confirm this issue is ongoing having had an email today to >> <uk-military-l@rootsweb.com> correctly delivered to the uk-military >> list but then held by mailman because no header contained >> <uk-military@rootsweb.com> >> Definitely one for Anne to chase. >> Malcolm. > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_rootswebpref&d=DwICbA&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=v6AzAQvEPUd3dtDtwmIS3Cy-Brt9YfKE5TUFmHO7h3Y&s=uU-D48XXO33Lk6hM9KYLvl22yZyRcr4BesNVca0aWTk&e= > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/listowners@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2JWBOdY&d=DwICbA&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=v6AzAQvEPUd3dtDtwmIS3Cy-Brt9YfKE5TUFmHO7h3Y&s=9DB6-yd2wWya-9m8NWyXeP-8NC_BHzPr7xGvLzk1lFE&e= Terms and Conditions: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2HDBym9&d=DwICbA&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=v6AzAQvEPUd3dtDtwmIS3Cy-Brt9YfKE5TUFmHO7h3Y&s=mJB9ORZtdZyZFqtzzR7GcV07tZv3l60FinWpALW5shY&e= > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk>

No Malcolm, its a solution The -L or -D hasn't been used for a long long time So its only the few that still have that in their address books that will encounter it How many times is this going to crop up? very few So get the subscribers to edit their own address books and the very odd one that gets held for a list owner, let the poster know what the problem is and they can sort it I would have thought Anne & Co have enough to contend with without wasting time on the likes of this minor problem Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 30/08/2018 19:12, Malcolm Austen wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 18:59:19 +0100, Nivard Ovington > <ovington.one@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just tell your subscribers to edit their address books > > That's just a work-around Nivard. Rootsweb need to decide if they are > aliases and then either treat them so everywhere or nowhere. > >> It took me three or four minutes to do > > And how any others don't understand and don't work out what to do, and > then someone may wake up in 6 months time and encounter the problem. It > a rootsweb issue and they will, I hope, eventually, jump one way or the > other. > > Malcolm.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 20:25:35 +0100, Nivard Ovington <ovington.one@gmail.com> wrote: > No Malcolm, its a solution > > The -L or -D hasn't been used for a long long time As I understand it, while newer lists never got -L or -D aliases, old lists still had them, supported, right up to the demise of the Mailman 2 system. My point was/is that rootsweb have to make the call as to whether they are still supported. If they are not, that's fine, but they should not be supported anywhere in the system. Currently they are supported half-way through the process and then left to generate an error. Malcolm. > So its only the few that still have that in their address books that > will encounter it > > How many times is this going to crop up? very few > > So get the subscribers to edit their own address books and the very odd > one that gets held for a list owner, let the poster know what the > problem is and they can sort it > > I would have thought Anne & Co have enough to contend with without > wasting time on the likes of this minor problem > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 30/08/2018 19:12, Malcolm Austen wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 18:59:19 +0100, Nivard Ovington >> <ovington.one@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Just tell your subscribers to edit their address books >> That's just a work-around Nivard. Rootsweb need to decide if they are >> aliases and then either treat them so everywhere or nowhere. >> >>> It took me three or four minutes to do >> And how any others don't understand and don't work out what to do, and >> then someone may wake up in 6 months time and encounter the problem. It >> a rootsweb issue and they will, I hope, eventually, jump one way or the >> other. >> Malcolm. > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_rootswebpref&d=DwICbA&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=9fcmCfWzfv06WnQhHLNNuBBlEcNi7WRsnSZJ18-rEYg&s=ntrhZtRB0QqmSE_B7UvH30oTtSXyzzC05LE3YaaP5EM&e= > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/listowners@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2JWBOdY&d=DwICbA&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=9fcmCfWzfv06WnQhHLNNuBBlEcNi7WRsnSZJ18-rEYg&s=iZFP1J-b4eOwMc0JleTzR0TZFhOYeZZlNn1VNJdIlqw&e= Terms and Conditions: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2HDBym9&d=DwICbA&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=9fcmCfWzfv06WnQhHLNNuBBlEcNi7WRsnSZJ18-rEYg&s=tIhrCe43lyLnxHItimyhGxng7e5YiZQ4M3EuC8XWxFI&e= > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk>

I'll have someone check into it. On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 2:07 PM Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 20:25:35 +0100, Nivard Ovington > <ovington.one@gmail.com> wrote: > > > No Malcolm, its a solution > > > > The -L or -D hasn't been used for a long long time > > As I understand it, while newer lists never got -L or -D aliases, old > lists still had them, supported, right up to the demise of the Mailman 2 > system. > > My point was/is that rootsweb have to make the call as to whether they > are > still supported. If they are not, that's fine, but they should not be > supported anywhere in the system. Currently they are supported half-way > through the process and then left to generate an error. > > Malcolm. > > > So its only the few that still have that in their address books that > > will encounter it > > > > How many times is this going to crop up? very few > > > > So get the subscribers to edit their own address books and the very odd > > one that gets held for a list owner, let the poster know what the > > problem is and they can sort it > > > > I would have thought Anne & Co have enough to contend with without > > wasting time on the likes of this minor problem > > > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > On 30/08/2018 19:12, Malcolm Austen wrote: > >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 18:59:19 +0100, Nivard Ovington > >> <ovington.one@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Just tell your subscribers to edit their address books > >> That's just a work-around Nivard. Rootsweb need to decide if they are > >> aliases and then either treat them so everywhere or nowhere. > >> > >>> It took me three or four minutes to do > >> And how any others don't understand and don't work out what to do, > and > >> then someone may wake up in 6 months time and encounter the problem. > It > >> a rootsweb issue and they will, I hope, eventually, jump one way or > the > >> other. > >> Malcolm. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Email preferences: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_rootswebpref&d=DwICbA&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=9fcmCfWzfv06WnQhHLNNuBBlEcNi7WRsnSZJ18-rEYg&s=ntrhZtRB0QqmSE_B7UvH30oTtSXyzzC05LE3YaaP5EM&e= > > Unsubscribe > > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/listowners@rootsweb.com > > Privacy Statement: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2JWBOdY&d=DwICbA&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=9fcmCfWzfv06WnQhHLNNuBBlEcNi7WRsnSZJ18-rEYg&s=iZFP1J-b4eOwMc0JleTzR0TZFhOYeZZlNn1VNJdIlqw&e= > Terms and Conditions: > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2HDBym9&d=DwICbA&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=9fcmCfWzfv06WnQhHLNNuBBlEcNi7WRsnSZJ18-rEYg&s=tIhrCe43lyLnxHItimyhGxng7e5YiZQ4M3EuC8XWxFI&e= > > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > > community > > > -- > Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_rootswebpref&d=DwIBaQ&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=F1VT_ErLCky8CRP-w_VFTd7kYcYUSeNdr_7G4Ox3PSk&s=fKpeoR4QM6p39HfQtVIaJl_2a_fVGm-PTCh4FIHq0IY&e= > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/listowners@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2JWBOdY&d=DwIBaQ&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=QqKR_1oid-wv3O1GFus6ukhkWVArI2oTvHi2_JUm6dE&m=F1VT_ErLCky8CRP-w_VFTd7kYcYUSeNdr_7G4Ox3PSk&s=AQ1cxXSGe2bLlfCnby8ZkMsfAzoZ3PHrNpUBBCpgyYg&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=F1VT_ErLCky8CRP-w_VFTd7kYcYUSeNdr_7G4Ox3PSk&s=m-h1gAwWsH1HZHu-FDmY_h3JjMKTuE3vHz8BFzixH94&e= > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

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

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.

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 >

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

Go to "Member - Subscribers".  Find that e-mail address. Click on "Member Options" to the right.  Go to the bottom. What does it say across from "Moderation"? Mike On 8/20/2018 8:10 PM, Pat Connors wrote: > I have been notified by an owner that an email I sent today was held > for approval.  Turned out it might have been the -L in the email > address.  I sent one without it, it went through.  However, I also > sent the same message with the L to a couple of lists I admin and it > went through fine. > > Of the -L is stopping emails not to post to the various lists, > shouldn't we have been notified so we could let the posters know?