Error Condition Re: LOCAL delivery error

[listproc@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Rejected message: sent to CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu by Postmaster@umbsky.cc.umb.edu follows.
Reason for rejection: message sent to the errors folder.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Postmaster@umbsky.cc.umb.edu Tue Aug 25 10:19:10 1998
Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6])
        by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA01883
        for <owner-child-maltreatment-research-l@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu>; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:19:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
        by cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA12547
        for owner-child-maltreatment-research-l@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:19:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from gemini.cc.umb.edu (gemini.cc.umb.edu [158.121.2.2])
        by cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA12515
        for <owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:19:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199808251419.KAA12515@cornell.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:20:28 EDT
X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) 
From: Local delivery agent <Postmaster@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
To: <owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: LOCAL delivery error
X-Report-Type: Nondelivery; boundary="> Error description:"

Note: this message was generated automatically.

An error was detected while processing the enclosed message.  A list of
the affected recipients follows.  This list is in a special format that
allows software like LISTSERV to automatically take action on incorrect
addresses; you can safely ignore the numeric codes.

--> Error description:
Error-For:  cdse@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
Error-Code: 3
Error-Text: No such local user

Error-End:  1 error detected

------------------------------ Rejected message ------------------------------
Received: from listproc2.mail.cornell.edu by taurus.cc.umb.edu (MX V4.2 VAX) with SMTP; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:20:33 EST
Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA28899; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:35:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (POSTOFFICE.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.7]) by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA20395 for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu>; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:03:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10384 for CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:03:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [128.253.37.153] ([128.253.37.153]) by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA10370 for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:03:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <v03007803b2072150cf65@[128.253.37.153]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:02:26 -0400
Reply-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Sender: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Judy Scott <js54@cornell.edu>
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Drug Testing in CPS
In-Reply-To: <199808230401.AAA24994@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: js54@postoffice3.mail.cornell.edu
X-PH: V4.1@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN

In NY, positive tox is grounds for a report, but not opening a case. For
that, there must be positive tox plus some other problem. Also, some
counties require CPS workers to collect urine samples from clients under
court order and then cart the samples around with them all day until they
return to the office.  It amazes me that these workers report no problem
with client compliance. I would also think there might be some chain of
custody problems- to say nothing of personal safety issues.

On that same note, I was interested when my son, who just reported to
Officer's school in the army, told me that they were informed that the Army
has doubled the acceptable amount of THC in urine samples as those who
tested positive were all claiming it was second hand smoke.  So now the
standard is such that the soldier must have been smoking themselves.

Judy Scott MSW
js54@cornell.edu