At 06:59 PM 2/25/2005 +0100, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
>From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> > Thanks for the heads up, Mary. That's why my message appeared twice -
> > it bounced, and I sent it back.
> > David N. Lewis
>----- it did not bounce to me, when I sent. Perhaps the system does not treat
>all contributors equally. To me it sent an intelligent instruction not to re-
>send, because the system would deal with it. Do trust the system.
With apologies for spending another of our limited posts on this
Almost certainly, it did not "bounce" - i.e., it was not returned. Instead,
a notice was provided that the list was held (exceeded its limit). The
confusion is understandable; I do not recall seeing a paragraph in the
notice to the effect that no action was needed and that the message would
be sent when the list was released.
Two notes if I may:
1. It does not help to query the list when there is a lengthy silence. If
posts are being held, the query will be as well. Simply check the archives
to see if you have been missing messages and follow through appropriately.
2. This is another instance where replying to the author as well as to the
list is undesirable. The author may reply in turn and when the messages are
sent (i.e., the list has been released) they are received in reverse order.
Of course, a specific request for a copy takes precedence over this
[log in to unmask]