Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id UAA17332; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 20:20:41 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Tue, 2 Apr 1996 20:20:24 -0500
Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu (root@leibniz.math.psu.edu [146.186.130.2]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id UAA17276; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 20:20:21 -0500
Received: from augusta.math.psu.edu (augusta.math.psu.edu [146.186.132.2]) by leibniz.math.psu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA16053 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 20:20:19 -0500
Received: from localhost (barr@localhost) by augusta.math.psu.edu (8.7.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA28722 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 20:20:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199604030120.UAA28722@augusta.math.psu.edu>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Headers and agents 
In-reply-to: Your message of "03 Apr 1996 00:50:06 GMT."
             <19960403005006.13414.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu> 
References: <19960403005006.13414.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu> 
X-Face: $+9-wYg.[->94HJ{go[7Q]E!K&hUg7ZhLyCMyq_FU*ca0GazE>^/2BKLcK0bP-'%;Nn?M<m
 c~dP_j^A?M5Jw{+a7vcMu|M-mq"V4AzKq?mPMMNP\;f8J0n\-L]ODU)YMP;-pF>+am,jlSP>1K$iz@
 %'v'FEW{@](U&Ed/}>ju3Ctlr!XwJ27Q)7h2a%"`sz;j:/3EC[mXi@*X@HE1]'ddq$ZX"ePsMyTkeg
 >zdML.SV<t=R>vX1W`adGIUD
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 20:20:15 -0500
From: Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu>

In message <19960403005006.13414.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>, D. J. Bernstein w
rites:
>I already mentioned the usual case: somebody aliases mailing-list-owner
>to mailing-list. As soon as he adds a bad address to the list, boom.
>Two bad addresses, and the loop goes exponential.

Not a problem if you configure your mailer correctly.

mail to list:  force FROM owner-list
mail to owner-list: force  FROM rewritten to owner-owner-list.
(if owner-owner-list you bounce to Postmaster)

There's a well-known and well-understood method of having owner-list
being a list.  I don't see why 822bis can argue that rewriting
"<>" is a bad idea.  In fact if you don't rewrite "<>" then you
only hide the fact that there are bad addresses in your owner-list.
Do we want to encourage people to not handle bad addresses?

--Dave