Hi,
I'm the manager for computing support at Jim Kerwin's home
institution. Sorry to add more noise to the list, but I want to get
this information out there. It appears that a mistake resulted in an
application being attached to an outgoing message that was much
larger than the intended modestly sized document. This was
unfortunate, but did not result in multiple copies of the message
being distributed to the list. For as close to an explanation as i
can deduce, read on:
Some details of the ensuing mess still elude me. I can say that I
received the following four message, each with the large attachment:
11:48 AM 12/4/00 3 Re: MALDI Analysis of Polymers
3:18 AM 12/5/00 3 Re: MALDI Analysis of Polymers [Virus checked]
3:09 AM 12/6/00 4 Re: MALDI Analysis of Polymers [Virus checked]
3:16 AM 12/8/00 5 Re: MALDI Analysis of Polymers [Virus checked]
It appears that this might be the result of a classic mail loop.
Notice the similar times involved on all of the "followup" messages
and the addition of "[virus checked]" to the subject line. This
implies that these "extra" messages are being sent to the list by a
machine. An analysis of the headers show the messages originating
from a Lotus Notes installation in the "bioproducts.co.uk" domain.
The list operator of this list should contact the owner of this
domain to resolve the problem and use whatever list management
technique available to prevent additional postings to the list as a
result of this problem.
I am not 100 percent confident in my analysis here because the
headers may not be accurate after it is "processed" by the ABRF list
mailer at AECOM. Full headers and other information necessary to
resolve this problem should be available to the list operator however.
In short, Jim Kerwin has done nothing to purposefully or
negligently damage this list. These sorts of things can happen. I'd
like to suggest that "complaints" for such things not be posted to
the list. They contain no information (or worse: unfounded
accusations) and disrupt the group for those who aren't "affected" by
the problem being complained about.
Below I list a couple of remedial steps that list participants can
use to alleviate the immediate problems.
I agree that no attachments should be sent to the list and although
occasional, small attachments appear to be tolerated by the list
members, please consider the fact that if you are trying to report a
simple table of numbers or text, it would be best to just copy and
paste into the e-mail from word or whatever software you're using
rather than attach a file.
Two suggestions for immediate work-around:
1) as someone else suggested, most e-mail clients will allow you to
skip messages over a certain size. I would consider this an absolute
necessity for those of you using dial-up services. you never know
when someone or something could lay a situation like this on you.
2) if you want to share information that really needs to be presented
outside of the body of the e-mail, consider posting to a web site or
ftp server. then provide a link to the info in the body of the e-mail
message. There are many sources of free web site space or you can
easily run your own server if your institution allows it.
Alternatively, if only a few people will be interested, you can post
a message to the list that you are willing to share this extra
information by request and follow up with direct e-mails.
For the longer term, I suggest the ABRF consider improvements in it's
e-mail management system and possibly supply collaborative space for
sharing files outside of (associated with) the e-mail list. I know
that some different options are currently being considered. I should
point out that even lists that are managed by fancy software can
sometimes be victimized by mail loops.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program...
-James
>Hey Jim,
>
>don't you realise that some people subscribe to the ABRF from home and here
>in the UK most of us have to pay for every minute were attached to the
>internet service provider. Therefore large emails like the one you sent
>'twice' costs us in terms of time and money as the transfer rate of a
>standard modem means that it can take a long time to down load the 5MB +
>that you sent. I've just spent 25 minutes waiting for my emails to download
>from the server. Is it not possible for you to send the attached file(s)
>directly to the person conserned. Did I read an earlier email about the
>suggestion of a storage area where participants in the maillist could upload
>and download attachments. This seems like a good idea.
>
>yours
>
>Dougie
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jim Kerwin" <jlk39@cornell.edu>
>To: "Recipients of ABRF List" <abrf@aecom.yu.edu>
>Cc: "Piero Pucci" <pucci@unina.it>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 8:18 AM
>Subject: Re: MALDI Analysis of Polymers [Virus checked]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Hi Bruce - Here's a few options. When using volatile solvents,
>>multiple spotting of a uL of the analyte on the target plate helps.
>>Please let me know if you get a decent matrix for chitosan. Regards-
>
>
>\Jim Kerwin
>Mass Spectrometry Facility
>Cornell University
>Ithaca, NY 14853
>Tel 607-254-4848
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>At 16.21 30/11/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>>I've seen a lot of great advice about MALDI-TOF MS of peptides, proteins
>and
>>>nucleic acids being provided here so I am hoping to find a little help in
>>>another area. We are trying to look at polymers by MALDI-TOF and have
>been
>>>having some trouble getting them to fly. Our favorite test subjects are
>>>commercially availble polyethyleneimine (2000 and 25,000 Da),
>polyallylamine
>>>(15,000 and 70,000 Da) dextran (60,000-90,000 Da) and chitosan (150,000
>to
>>>540,000 Da). Now I know the highest MW compounds may be out of reach, but
>I
>>>expected to be able to analyze a 2000 MW polymer. Are there any preferred
>>>matrices, concentrations, parameters, etc. that you can send my way?
>Thanks
>>>in advance for any information or citations!
>>>
>>>Bruce.
>>>
>>>Bruce Frank, Ph.D.
>>>Director, Chemistry
>>>ValiGen (formerly Kimeragen, Inc.)
>>>300 Pheasant Run
>>>Newtown, PA 18940
>>>Phone: 215-504-4444 x214
>>>Fax: 215-504-4545
>>>email: bfrank@kimeragen.com
>>>
>>>
>>Prof. Piero Pucci
>>Dipartimento di Chimica Organica e Biochimica
>>Universitý di Napoli Federico II
>>Complesso Universitario Monte S. Angelo
>>via Cinthia - 80126 Napoli
>>Tel. +39-081-674318; Fax: +39-081-674313
>>e
>>Centro Internazionale Servizi di Spettrometria di Massa
>>via Pansini 5 - 80131 Napoli
>>http://sco.technapoli.it/mass/Home.html
>>Tel. +39-81-5465136 Fax +39-81-5465484
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have
>received
>> it in error you must not copy, disclose, distribute or rely on its
>contents
>> but delete it immediately from your computer and notify BPL please by
>> telephoning +44 (0) 20 8258 2589.
>>
>> BPL is not responsible and cannot be held liable
>> -for any reason to anyone who has received this e-mail in error
>> -for the contents of personal or private messages sent by members of staff
>> -for the security of information sent by e-mail at your request
>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James VanEe Phone: (607) 254-4862
BioResource Center
Computing Facilty
170/171 Biotech Bldg Fax: (607) 254-4847
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853 www: http://brcweb.bio.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 05 2001 - 08:42:46 EST