[arch-general] Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

[Jeffrey Parke]

Ricardo Hernandez wrote:
> Me too, when i try to write to arch-general
>
> 2009/2/15 Avramucz Péter <muczyjoe at gmail.com>:
>   
>> I get this too.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis <grbzks at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:00:44AM -0500, Daenyth Blank wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 08:08, Grigorios Bouzakis <grbzks at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> I got  Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender for both of these:
>>>>> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2009-February/003630.html
>>>>> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2009-February/003631.html
>>>>> hence the 2nd email. I assume you got the emails, and that i will get a delivery
>>>>> failure for this email too. Anyone else getting that?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>           
>>>> I haven't gotten anything unusual lately
>>>>         
>>> Weird, heres what i get:
>>>
>>> This is the mail system at host gerolde.archlinux.org.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
>>> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
>>>
>>> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
>>>
>>> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
>>> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
>>>
>>>                   The mail system
>>>
>>> <arch-general at archlinux.org>: mail forwarding loop for
>>>    arch-general at archlinux.org
>>>
>>> Reporting-MTA: dns; gerolde.archlinux.org
>>> X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 9B94A2A130
>>> X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822;
>>> SRS0=D4Ia=6S=gmail.com=grbzks at srs.kundenserver.de
>>> Arrival-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:10:32 -0500 (EST)
>>>
>>> Final-Recipient: rfc822; arch-general at archlinux.org
>>> Original-Recipient: rfc822;arch-general at archlinux.org
>>> Action: failed
>>> Status: 5.4.6
>>> Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; mail forwarding loop for
>>> arch-general at archlinux.org
>>>
>>> --
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>       
>
>
>
>   
it is most likely because we are now rejecting html emails, right?