Veeery interesting. Just now I received a bounce from the cunyvm.cun.edu list exploder (where the majority of people receive their FML issues) of the *original* issue 696 sent on Jan 13th. The bounce was, (very funny Bill ;-), because the issue was a duplicate - I had resent it Jan 14th (or possibly 15th). I sent mail to the other people in the "batch" that included the exploder, and got someone saying that they did get their article at the right time. For those RFC822/mailer problem fans, here is the interesting part: Received: from CUNYVM (NJE origin SMTP@CUNYVM) by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1 .7f) with BSMTP id 7777; Tue, 18 Jan 1994 16:47:13 -0500 Received: from relay1.UU.NET by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Tue, 18 Jan 94 16:47:03 EST Received: from mail.uunet.ca (via uunet.ca) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA02219; Thu, 13 Jan 94 18:49:08 -0500 Received: from ecicrl by mail.uunet.ca with UUCP id <58733(3)>; Thu, 13 Jan 1994 18:48:17 -0500 Received: by ferret.ocunix.on.ca (smail2.5) id AA11863; 13 Jan 94 05:02:20 EST (Thu) You read this from the bottom up. I sent it on 05:02 on Jan 13. Arrived at my access provider (uunet.ca, Toronto) at 18:48 (doesn't usually take *that* long - usually half an hour or so) on the 13th, hit UUNET (Arlington West Virginia) at 18:49 on the 13th, and thereupon it sat for 5 whole days before getting to CUNY. Strange thing is that I usually get warnings back from uunet if it hasn't been able to get through for 3 days. It almost looks like uunet lost a spool drive, or a whole system, and took 5 days to restore it back to normalcy. Alternately, their mailer got 5 days behind. Which is hard to believe. Bill, you may wish to try searching for incoming requests from relay1.uu.net on cunyvm's logs between the 13th and 18th, and see if they were completely out of touch or not. [Posted in FML issue 0702]