response 151 of 260:

Jan 27 23:13 UTC 2006

No. Entering responses and items works normally via ssh and telnet.

response 153 of 260:

Jan 31 23:22 UTC 2006

I tried connecting to Grex via dial-up about a week ago for the first time 
in a while and ran into an odd terminal emulation issue on the Grex end.  
I couldn't access pine to read my e-mail because it interpreted my 
terminal type as "dial-up."

So, I went to the Grex menu system to change my terminal.  I defined my 
terminal as VT100 and Grex seemed to register it as such, but when I tried 
to read mail via pine it told me again that my terminal was "dialup" and 
wouldn't allow me to access mail via pine.  Why wouldn't Grex register the 
correct terminal type on dial-in even after it was told what that type 
would be?  It seems like Grex is forcing a terminal type called "dialup" 
on dial-in users.

I'm dialing in on a Mac running Mac OS 9.2 and Zterm 1.1b7.

I would still like to access Grex via dial-up locally on occasion, as I 
don't always have access to a high-speed internet connection.  I like Grex 
because I don't need e-mail to be anything other than text, and it's been 
nice to have a consistent e-mail address since finding Grex in Ann Arbor 
in the mid-1990s.

On another note, I can't seem to use a secure shell to get to Grex via an 
Internet connection anymore, either.  I have to use plain old telnet, 
which isn't terribly secure.  What's going on there?

response 155 of 260:

Feb 1 13:29 UTC 2006

From Mailer-Daemon@cyberspace.org Tue Jan 31 22:30:19 2006
X-Failed-Recipients: XXXX@worldnet.att.net,
  XXX@att.net,
  XXX@aol.com,
  XXX@aol.com
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
From: Mail Delivery System <Mailer-Daemon@cyberspace.org>
To: keesan@cyberspace.org
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:30:18 -0500

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

  XXX@worldnet.att.net
    SMTP error from remote mail server after MAIL FROM:<keesan@cyberspace.org>
    SIZE=3823: host gateway2.worldnet.att.net [12.102.240.23]:
    550-216.86.77.194 blocked by blacklist.mail.ops.worldnet.att.net. 550
    Blocked for abuse. See http://www.att.net/general-info/rblinquiry.html
  XXX@att.net
  XXX@aol.com
    SMTP error from remote mail server after initial connection:
    host mailin-02.mx.aol.com [64.12.138.185]: 554- (RTR:BL)  http://postma
ster.info.aol.com/errors/554rtrbl.html
    554- AOL does not accept e-mail transactions from IP addresses which
    554- generate complaints or transmit unsolicited bulk e-mail.
    554  Connecting IP: 216.86.77.194
  XXXX@aol.com
    SMTP error from remote mail server after initial connection:


How did we get on the rbl list again?

response 157 of 260:

Feb 1 20:56 UTC 2006

So how did we get onto this different blacklist after blocking new users from
sending outgoing mail?

response 159 of 260:

Feb 2 02:48 UTC 2006

We were blocked by AOL earlier.  Can we write and ask to be unblocked?

response 163 of 260:

Feb 2 05:54 UTC 2006

OK. Now I'm using a PC with Microsoft Windows XP and HyperTerminal.  Same
problem.  Despite using the menu system to change the terminal type to VT100,
which is what I'm emulating on my end, Grex registers this and then later
tells me that my terminal type "dialup" is unknown, and therefore won't allow
me to access mail via pine.  What's going on?

response 165 of 260:

Feb 2 15:28 UTC 2006

But unfortunately there are still dummies who use AOL, and I work for one of
them and Jim's brother is another.  

response 167 of 260:

Feb 2 15:48 UTC 2006

Haven't you see any of the AOL for DUMMIES books?  Yellow and black cover.
I have also see Weddings for Dummies, or maybe it was for Idiots.

response 169 of 260:

Feb 2 15:54 UTC 2006

Ah, maybe I took your comment out of context. I assumed you were really
disparaging dummies.

I prefer the "Idiot's Guides" myself. Funnily enough I thought the "for
Dummies" books were more patronizing.

response 173 of 260:

Feb 2 17:38 UTC 2006

People will admit to being a, say, Unix Dummy, more readily than being a Unix
Ignoramus. The latter, though, is better for identifying someone else.