On Feb 4, 17:01, Jay West wrote: My request-for-enhancement is: "do something" about HTML, or better still, "do something" about any "multipart/alternative" posting (which would include M$ richtext, with those application/ms-tnef attachments). Options I can think of: a) silently discard any such postings (probably not a good idea) b) bounce them back to the author, with an explanation of why bounced c) remove the non-text part d) combination of (b) and (c) e) accept, but warn the author (who may not realise (s)he's sent HTML) All of these would involve scanning the content to a greater or lesser extent. I've no idea how doable that would be with majordomo, whether the extra processing is acceptable to the server, or whether Jay has the time to do that. Just for information, some of these policies are implemented on our helpdesk at work, which automatically tracks, redirects, and archives user support enquiries. We implement (e) on the first "offence", and (b) thereafter, but since every incoming email is read by a human, we do it by paw and memory, and occasionally discretion (ie we tend to discard fewer mails from professors than students :-)). We also have a policy of discarding attachments (or indeed any message) by simple automated truncation at the 10-kilobyte mark (mainly to prevent filling mailboxes and archives with "why doesn't this 4Mb PostScript/JPEG/Word document print?"). I think the record idiocy was a 63MB Word document ("I can't send this document to my friend. Why?") -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York