Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:59:11 -0400
Message-Id: <199908132359.TAA02352@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <01d801bee5c9$44d5c4c0$12d098cd@co.alachua.fl.us>
	(edl AT ns1 DOT co DOT alachua DOT fl DOT us)
Subject: Re: Returned mail: Remote protocol error
References: <199908131955 DOT PAA23740 AT ns1 DOT co DOT alachua DOT fl DOT us> <01d801bee5c9$44d5c4c0$12d098cd AT co DOT alachua DOT fl DOT us>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


There's a simple answer to this: you're blocked by the mail filter,
but the original poster used Usenet, which doesn't go through the mail
filter (it's not mail, it's news, so it goes through the news filter).
The news filter and the mail filter are (unfortunately) two separate
programs, so it's hard to keep them in sync.  There's also a filter in
the mail-news-mail gateway, so some posts will show up in news (it's
unmoderated) but be blocked from the mailing list (hopefully, those
are the spam, but I can't be 100% perfect).

One of the things I'd like to get to "eventually" is to ignore quoted
material in the mail filter, so that problems like this don't happen.
However, that doesn't mean you can't just edit out the offending part
and re-send.

> I have a question about this. The word is questions here was part of the
> orginal message. If there's a filter that blocked by reply, why where not
> the orginal message and it's reply not blocked, since they had the same word
> in them. I object to be censored because of a word that was in an orginal
> message that was not censored!!!!!