Grex Helpers Conference

Item 110: System Problems Item

Entered by i on Sat Jun 22 11:04:31 2002:

222 new of 293 responses total.


#72 of 293 by aruba on Thu Jul 11 20:10:28 2002:

I'm dialed in now.  Thanks again, Scott.


#73 of 293 by wh on Thu Jul 11 21:45:15 2002:

Working good. Thank you.


#74 of 293 by mary on Thu Jul 11 22:24:26 2002:

Thankyouthankyouthankyou.


#75 of 293 by keesan on Fri Jul 12 00:55:15 2002:

Thanks from me and from dpfitzen, who phoned yesterday to find out whether
the attachment in her email might have caused grex to stop working for her.
She writes that it is doing fine again now, thankfully.


#76 of 293 by polytarp on Fri Jul 12 10:20:06 2002:

RE.64:  It wasn't so much random as it was what I was listening to.


#77 of 293 by russ on Mon Jul 15 02:41:32 2002:

The system is really slow giving login prompts tonight.


#78 of 293 by russ on Mon Jul 15 12:35:01 2002:

Still taking upwards of 50 seconds to get a login prompt.


#79 of 293 by dpc on Mon Jul 15 13:56:47 2002:

I think the dialins may be down again.  I got nothing beyond
my own software's notice of a connect.  Then I hung up
and telnetted in from M-Net.  I got in immediately with
no delay.


#80 of 293 by keesan on Mon Jul 15 20:45:11 2002:

Lynx has not been working for a while - just times out after taking
forever to get the DNS number on the screen for any URL.


#81 of 293 by scott on Mon Jul 15 22:22:02 2002:

That might be a result of work on Gryps, which we use for a web proxy (among
other things).  I'll send an email to the appropriate staffer.


#82 of 293 by russ on Mon Jul 15 22:30:02 2002:

Still got long delays for login prompts on the dial-ins.


#83 of 293 by cmcgee on Tue Jul 16 00:46:20 2002:

It just took 38 seconds between my software showing that I was connected, and
Grex asking for my login.


#84 of 293 by aruba on Tue Jul 16 03:19:05 2002:

Right, still getting long delays from the terminal server, and it has
stopped saying "it may take a few seconds to connect".  Instead I just get:

/---------------------------------------------\
| CONNECT 14400 V42                           |
| <long delay>                                |
| Grex is the Midnight Snack of Champs        |
|                                             |
| New to grex?  Type help at the login prompt |
|                                             |
| grex.cyberspace.org login:                  |
\---------------------------------------------/


#85 of 293 by russ on Tue Jul 16 03:32:33 2002:

Item regarding the long delay for login prompt on the dial-ins:
the usual note "Welcome to Grex!  Please wait..." that I usually
use as an indication that I can start typing, is missing.


#86 of 293 by cmcgee on Tue Jul 16 03:49:39 2002:

Still getting 32-35 second delay, but my screen is saying all the right
things.  (it may take a few seconds....)


#87 of 293 by polytarp on Tue Jul 16 06:07:39 2002:

You people whine a lot.


#88 of 293 by oval on Tue Jul 16 09:57:55 2002:

this is probably not the appropriate place to post this but i'm having 
trouble using bbs with this putty client. i get the Ok prompt and 
repond or pass prompt but no posts. i tried redoing everything 
via 'change' but still nuttin. can anyone give me some advice?


#89 of 293 by keesan on Tue Jul 16 14:35:37 2002:

Lynx is still not working - it finds the DNS number and says 'making
HTTP connection to 123.44.....'.


#90 of 293 by gull on Tue Jul 16 17:59:17 2002:

Re #89: There's a note in the MOTD about the proxy server being down.  That
means Lynx isn't going to work until it's fixed.


#91 of 293 by gelinas on Wed Jul 17 00:39:38 2002:

oval, try

        printenv TERM

or

        echo $TERM

I'd guess it *won't* say vt100.  You could then try

        setenv TERM vt100

and see what happens.


#92 of 293 by jaklumen on Wed Jul 17 01:13:57 2002:

resp 87: Speak for yourself, Phillie boy.


#93 of 293 by oval on Wed Jul 17 14:14:23 2002:

uhhhh... looks like exiting and logging back in after running change in
neccessary.

oops.



#94 of 293 by other on Thu Jul 18 17:43:25 2002:

I have now begun to receive spam sent to comments@grex, board@grex, and 
possibly other alias addresses.  All in favor of spammers being subjected 
to spontaneous combustion, say "Aye!"  (You don't have to type it in, 
though.)


#95 of 293 by tsty on Fri Jul 19 12:05:37 2002:

you could always get the senate to add   spammers    to the new
'life behind bars' bill  - see  Nucking Futts item.


#96 of 293 by other on Fri Jul 19 16:47:38 2002:

I could, if I had a few hundred million dollars to strategically give 
away for the privilege of writing my own legislation...


#97 of 293 by carson on Fri Jul 19 20:36:07 2002:

(ssh appears to leave birthday announcements out.)


#98 of 293 by krj on Fri Jul 19 22:27:31 2002:

The idle timer seems to be failing.  I got a whole bunch of messages
telling me I would be disconnected for idleness, but the disconnect
never happened.


#99 of 293 by gelinas on Sat Jul 20 01:47:28 2002:

Hmmm... it's possible that the number of open connections dropped between the
warning and its execution, of course.


#100 of 293 by russ on Sat Jul 20 13:08:42 2002:

Whatever the problem was with teh dial-ins, it's fixed.


#101 of 293 by tpryan on Sat Jul 20 21:02:31 2002:

        They are behaving better.  Thank you.  even to the point
of hanging up when I log in as bye to get disconnected.  before
it was just handing me another log-in.


#102 of 293 by polytarp on Sun Jul 21 19:00:39 2002:

I think pwho is broken:

pwohbash-2.05$ pwoh
wohpwohpowhpwhowphobash: pwoh: command not found
w
bash-2.05$ pwho
User     Started          Channel
bash-2.05$ pwoh
bash: pwoh: command not found
bash-2.05$ pwoh
bash: pwoh: command not found
bash-2.05$ wohpwohpowhpwhowphow
bash: wohpwohpowhpwhowphow: command not found
bash-2.05$ hppwohwph
bash: hppwohwph: command not found
bash-2.05$ pwohpwohp
owbash: pwohpwohp: command not found
h
pbash-2.05$ owh
hpbash: owh: command not found
bash-2.05$ pwohpwhpop
hbash: pwohpwhpop: command not found
bash-2.05$ h
bash: h: command not found
bash-2.05$


#103 of 293 by gelinas on Sun Jul 21 22:21:40 2002:

It's also possible that no one was using party at the time.

According to the log, party seems to have been empty from 14:53 to 15:00
this afternoon.


#104 of 293 by other on Mon Jul 22 06:52:21 2002:

I think polytarp is broken:

See resp:102


#105 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Jul 22 12:57:52 2002:

I'm sorry, but he's working exactly the way he's designed to.


#106 of 293 by jp2 on Mon Jul 22 15:23:05 2002:

This response has been erased.



#107 of 293 by tpryan on Tue Jul 23 22:31:53 2002:

        What I said in item 3.


#108 of 293 by polytarp on Wed Jul 24 23:21:22 2002:

Most of the users on the system are acting like complete untersmench.  This
MUST be corrected.  Of course, like all systems of class, I, the creator, am
in the highest.  Feel free to ask me who is untersmench, and who it not.


#109 of 293 by tsty on Thu Jul 25 09:09:20 2002:

so  pwho   returned a null set .   untersmench probably returns
a null set as well.


#110 of 293 by polytarp on Fri Jul 26 05:10:38 2002:

Hmm.  I spelt that word wrong!


#111 of 293 by davel on Fri Jul 26 13:18:00 2002:

This response has been erased.



#112 of 293 by keesan on Fri Jul 26 21:26:28 2002:

Dialing in to 3000 or 5041 gives me a blank screen.  I repeated this several
times just now.  It worked earlier today.  I can telnet.


#113 of 293 by tpryan on Sat Jul 27 00:21:50 2002:

        Ditto at this time.


#114 of 293 by davel on Sat Jul 27 01:01:03 2002:

We had that problem earlier, too.  Couldn't get on without dialing in, so
couldn't post to say so.  Tried repeatedly with no success.  Waited maybe 15
minutes, tried again, got on.  We were dialing 5041, but I suspect that it
was in use & we got something else.


#115 of 293 by keesan on Sat Jul 27 01:05:12 2002:

It works now.  5041.  Scott said something about replacing the hub again.


#116 of 293 by tpryan on Sat Jul 27 17:58:56 2002:

        Why is Grex chasing away those that dial into the advertised
number of 761-3000.  I dial, and no answer.  5041 worked.
                  ?


#117 of 293 by keesan on Sun Jul 28 12:19:14 2002:

Scott explained that there are actually two sets of modems in use at grex and
they are not all interchangeable but he will try his best to fix things.  The
28.8 modems came without instructions so are not yet installed.  Perhaps some
other grexer with infinite experience can get them working.  Perhaps grex
could start telling people to dial 761-5041 instead, as this does not crash
downloads with zmodem or kermit the was 3000 does, if it is not possible to
simply switch the modems on these two lines.


#118 of 293 by keesan on Sun Jul 28 21:25:12 2002:

Grex (pine) is taking forever to send email and I cannot get out of the wait
(I don't know if waiting would help) even with Ctl-C, I have to hang up. 
Tried this twice.  Things worked earlier today.


#119 of 293 by carson on Mon Jul 29 04:09:27 2002:

(assorted weirdness going on.  system's going slow, there was a
spike in the load, and, as of right now, attempts to telnet in are
closed upon login.)


#120 of 293 by richard on Mon Jul 29 04:43:04 2002:

did grex get mail-bombed by some evil slimeball tonight>?


#121 of 293 by carson on Mon Jul 29 05:09:33 2002:

(valerie reports that Grex is closed to telnet connections while the
mail spool catches up.  no bomb, just a minor op error.)


#122 of 293 by tpryan on Mon Jul 29 14:03:49 2002:

        Advertised number of 761-3000 is still sending people away.


#123 of 293 by scott on Mon Jul 29 14:19:25 2002:

Hmm.  I'd changed that modem because of the complaints about flow control.
Tim, do you get connected when you dial 761-5041?  There are two different
types of modems in the pool, and I have to be careful that fixing one person's
annoyance doesn't cause complete failure for somebody else.


#124 of 293 by keesan on Tue Jul 30 00:42:12 2002:

Scot, thanks for trying so hard.  You can't win (;


#125 of 293 by keesan on Tue Jul 30 14:17:33 2002:

I would be willing to do some online research to try to find either the
instructions for the modems that dang got, or another set of used modems that
come with the manual, if someone will tell me what to search for.  My ISP says
they have Portmaster with 48 modems and they think that is the minimum number,
but I ran across a 1996 reference to a PM3 with 20 modem possibility that was
being used with 7 modems.  The ISP started wtih 56K modems so has no old ones
lying around unused.


#126 of 293 by tpryan on Tue Jul 30 22:29:23 2002:

        When I dial 761-5041 I get connected.  When I dial 761-3000 I 
get ignored.


#127 of 293 by rcurl on Wed Jul 31 00:14:27 2002:

Isn't 761300 a 2400 baud modem? Or has it been upgraded?


#128 of 293 by i on Wed Jul 31 00:56:56 2002:

761-3000 works fine for me...but i have to wait a few rings for it to
answer.


#129 of 293 by davel on Wed Jul 31 01:44:22 2002:

That may mean that the modem on that line has now been turned off, so that
it eventually hunts to another line, or something like that.


#130 of 293 by pvn on Wed Jul 31 09:14:03 2002:

Not likely.  Dunno how grex is provisioned from the CO but the only 
time a number dialed will hunt a trunk is before the first ring.
Thus this is more likely a DTR-not on the RI.  Its been thankfully
a number of months since so I forget but the last time I delt with
such an issue it was the modem cable and not the modem itself.
Also one should consider the bigger picture, just because yesterday
one number on an hunt trunk rolled over to the next is no reason
to assume the same is today or that it will in the future.
Most of the folk that know how a POTS should work are long since
gone and been replaced by 'yo's on minimum wage who haven't a clue
unless the hi-tech laptop tells them.  Welcome to the world of
'deregulation'....(you pay more now for less).


#131 of 293 by jep on Wed Jul 31 12:10:24 2002:

Backtalk is down.


#132 of 293 by gull on Wed Jul 31 14:16:26 2002:

Grex's net connection seems really sluggish today, but maybe it's just my
path.


#133 of 293 by mynxcat on Wed Jul 31 14:58:35 2002:

This response has been erased.



#134 of 293 by randyc on Wed Jul 31 16:42:49 2002:

Same here. 


#135 of 293 by remmers on Wed Jul 31 16:56:46 2002:

Slowness is gone and the web server is back.  Apparently there were
vandal problems.  From the motd:

  Grex's web server is temporarily down, and Grex is very slow due to
  vandals requesting the same web page over and over again.  -vm



#136 of 293 by jep on Wed Jul 31 17:19:53 2002:

Backtalk is still down.


#137 of 293 by gull on Wed Jul 31 18:04:18 2002:

See #20 in the System Announcements item (#3).  Grex is being hit with a
DDoS attack.  The webserver has been taken down to reduce the impact.



#138 of 293 by keesan on Wed Jul 31 19:36:46 2002:

Cannot send out mail - is that related to the webserver?


#139 of 293 by dpc on Wed Jul 31 19:46:03 2002:

A couple of hours ago e-mail to me from her work at cornerhealth.org
was bounced, saying Grex was not accepting e-mail from that address.
Any ideas why?


#140 of 293 by russ on Thu Aug 1 00:23:16 2002:

I got an odd message after trying to send some mail, something about
"grex.cyberspace.org does not seem to exist", or words to that effect
(they scrolled off because of the Agora login message).


#141 of 293 by dpc on Thu Aug 1 13:13:08 2002:

My wife tried (again) to send mail to me from cornerhealth.org.
Here are the basics of the bounce message she got:

The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
dpc@cyberspace.org
Reason:   553 I can't accept mail from XXX@cornerhealth.org
via w162.z208177186.det-mi.dsl.cnc.net.

What, if anything, is Grex trying to say here?


#142 of 293 by carson on Thu Aug 1 15:03:22 2002:

(that it's overloaded with connection attempts from other places?
possibly?  just maybe?)


#143 of 293 by jep on Thu Aug 1 16:16:31 2002:

Backtalk is back.  The system is a bit quicker this afternoon, too.

Many thanks to the hero(es) who have been dealing with this mess.  If 
you folks aren't the best, then you're definitely up and coming 
contenders.


#144 of 293 by mdw on Fri Aug 2 05:08:18 2002:

A transformer supplying the building grex is in, and the whole block,
apparently blew up.  Grex was down until we were pretty sure power was
back (ie, when I stopped by to see if the power was on a few minutes
ago).  The power does work now.  The DSL router is deader than a door
nail now though -- I guess it didn't survive whatever the transformer
did.


#145 of 293 by dpc on Fri Aug 2 13:43:48 2002:

Since the DSL router has departed this life, does its demise
mean that (1) all off-site incoming e-mail is being bounced,
and/or (2) that all outgoing e-mail is being blocked?
FWIW, the last off-site e-mail I received came in at 12:51 p.m.
August 1.


#146 of 293 by carson on Fri Aug 2 13:52:41 2002:

(outgoing mail wouldn't necessarily be blocked, but it's not going
anywhere until a DSL router is put in place.  incoming would be
another matter; I know that [either] we [or another system] have
had mail queued for delivery at an alternate location in the past.
dunno what's being done in this instance.)

(glad to hear Grex itself is OK.  what's the prognosis for getting
another router?  do we need a bake sale?)


#147 of 293 by rcurl on Fri Aug 2 16:08:01 2002:

/a/r/c/rcurl who
raheim   ttypf    Aug  2 11:56 (216.93.104.37)
rcurl    ttytb    Aug  2 11:57 (216.93.104.37)

All alone, by the telephone....
Tra la trala....


#148 of 293 by gull on Fri Aug 2 17:13:28 2002:

Generally mail that can't be delivered due to network problems is held at
the system trying to send it.  Usually error messages are sent back to the
sender periodically until the message is about 4 days old, and then it's
bounced.  So if Grex can get a new router within the next three days, you
probably won't lose any mail.  Mailing lists may kick you off, though,
depending on how the software is configured.


#149 of 293 by jp2 on Fri Aug 2 19:33:45 2002:

This response has been erased.



#150 of 293 by mdw on Fri Aug 2 20:24:17 2002:

The router has been replaced, at unknown expense.  Grex itself has
slightly more generous time limits for mail that can't be sent right
away -- it will wait a whole day before complaining about queued mail
(the default is 4 hours), and will wait 5 days before bouncing it
(default is 3 days).


#151 of 293 by drew on Fri Aug 2 20:33:27 2002:

I *AM* on a dialup, and sz is refusing to work claiming that I'm telnetted
in.


#152 of 293 by drew on Fri Aug 2 20:40:54 2002:

Okay, it worked that time. It must have freaked out on the abandoned process,
which I deleted.


#153 of 293 by munkey on Fri Aug 2 23:34:36 2002:

From the MOTD: Grex's web service is back up.  It turns out the problem was
not an
attack, but instead somebody trying to host an extremely popular web page
on Grex.
Who was the "extremely popular web page"?


#154 of 293 by scott on Sat Aug 3 00:09:19 2002:

It had something to do with IRC bots.  It wasn't a big page, but basically
it suddenly had a huge number of people accessing it.


#155 of 293 by orinoco on Sat Aug 3 01:51:04 2002:

Now I'm confused.  Was it too many web hits, a power supply problem, or both?


#156 of 293 by gelinas on Sat Aug 3 02:24:18 2002:

Sounds like three separate problems, consecutively:

        1)  A popular web page saturated the DSL link

as that got resolved

        2)  A transformer blew its coil

which resulted in

        3)  A dead router

Dave, your problem with cornerhealth may be related to anti-spamming rules.
(Just a guess; I've not tried to look at grex's mail configuration.)
"cornerhealth.org" does not have an address record in DNS, and
it's "mail-exchange" record eventually resolves to something to the
w162.z208177186.det-mi.dsl.cnc.net name you mention.  In other words,
a quick check would make it seem that someone is claiming to be something
(someone) they are not.  

Some might argue that is not sufficient cause to reject mail; I don't
know what grex is actually doing.


#157 of 293 by mdw on Sat Aug 3 03:04:43 2002:

grex sendmail will say "I can't accept mail from", but will also always
include a url that points to badsys.html after that.  This is why
reporting the complete error message is of value; people like Joe who
don't know much about mail at grex, would still have given you a much
better answer if they had known about the URL.  Actually, the url points
to a very old web page complaining mostly about obselete reasons why we
didn't accept mail from certain machines (in the bad old days with ppp,
where path mtu discover broke some things,) but at the end, I think we
also had something about that non-specific catchall, spam.  That is to
say, we block mail from machines which we think only send spam.  We've
done this for a while, but we've recently become much more aggressive
about this.

We've seen spam from machines at "cnc.net" for a long time.  The
earliest record I have is from 20001201, when I blocked one subnet I
think in San Jose California, which appeared to be used for DSL lines.
Another staffer blocked more DSL lines in what might be Miami, Florida,
20011130, for sending "smut spam".  That same staffer added *.cnc.net on
20020706, after apparently concluding that the entire domain ".cnc.net"
was only used for sending "Spammitty spam!"


#158 of 293 by richard on Sun Aug 4 04:56:21 2002:

question is what can grex do about its susceptibility to somebody setting
up a grex web page as a pointer to something else that gets a lot of
hits.  I mean what if somebody sets up a grex web page to use as a pointer
to some popular porn site or something.  it would be easy for someone to
use such methods to attack grex.  just that one page getting all those
hits slowed down grex considerably.


#159 of 293 by scott on Sun Aug 4 11:36:28 2002:

So, we should stop hosting web pages then?


#160 of 293 by carson on Sun Aug 4 11:48:30 2002:

<carson suspects that a certain someone misunderstands the problem, but
that someone is trying, to say the least>


#161 of 293 by keesan on Sun Aug 4 20:28:50 2002:

Threetimes in a row kermit has dialed, gotten nothing, then redialed before
reaching grex.


#162 of 293 by jp2 on Sun Aug 4 21:28:26 2002:

This response has been erased.



#163 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Aug 5 00:13:43 2002:

Grex was slashdotted?


#164 of 293 by gelinas on Mon Aug 5 01:37:13 2002:

That's JP's interpretation of the situation.

But who, besides grexers, would note a DoS against M-Net?


#165 of 293 by keesan on Mon Aug 5 02:22:06 2002:

Dialing works okay now.


#166 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Aug 5 02:59:27 2002:

Re #164:  MNetters.  Like me.


#167 of 293 by jp2 on Mon Aug 5 03:41:47 2002:

This response has been erased.



#168 of 293 by gelinas on Mon Aug 5 04:03:01 2002:

(I know, Joe; 'twas a poor attempt at a joke.)


#169 of 293 by gelinas on Thu Aug 8 03:04:48 2002:

Hmm... with 37 people on, I'm 5th in the telnet queue.


#170 of 293 by richard on Thu Aug 8 05:55:20 2002:

is grex a little slow tonight?


#171 of 293 by void on Thu Aug 8 19:10:34 2002:

   Some e-mail sent to me on Tuesday still has not arrived.


#172 of 293 by goose on Fri Aug 9 19:44:50 2002:

Occasionally I get this when logging in, but not always:
Warning: Server lies about size of server public key: actual size is 767 bits
vs. announced 768.
Warning: This may be due to an old implementation of ssh.

So is it my ssh that may be outdated?


#173 of 293 by goose on Fri Aug 9 19:45:22 2002:

Oh yeah, and why only on certain ports or at certain times (I'm not sure which
it is)


#174 of 293 by gelinas on Sat Aug 10 01:36:17 2002:

I've thought it was the grex sshd.  I don't worry about it, though.


#175 of 293 by goose on Sat Aug 10 05:05:56 2002:

Neither do I, but I'd been seeing it for a while and thought I'd finally bring
it up.  I did find it interesting though that it doesn't always happen.


#176 of 293 by pvn on Sat Aug 10 06:55:19 2002:

Well, do you start counting at 0 or 1?


#177 of 293 by hash on Thu Aug 15 17:16:21 2002:

so, I was reading agora and I got kicked off for being idle.
my conference activity wasn't saved which annoyed me highly.
so, I put  'set save'  in my .cfonce, and 'lo and behold, picospan segfaults
when you do something as preposterous as that.


#178 of 293 by hash on Thu Aug 15 17:23:03 2002:

is it 'set autosave' ?  that doesn't seem to segfault.
I'm still trying to figure out why  'set save'  segfaults but really no other
set commands or random strings do.


#179 of 293 by carson on Thu Aug 15 17:23:28 2002:

(try "set autosave" instead.)


#180 of 293 by rksjr on Mon Aug 19 02:07:04 2002:

A grexer sent e-mail to me last Wednesday, however, I did
not receive the "you have new mail" notice until today
(Sunday, sometime between 9:40 am and 7:19 pm), and I have
logged on five times since Wednesday. Does the "you have new
mail" notice appear only when e-mail arrives from outside of
the Grex system?


#181 of 293 by mdw on Mon Aug 19 23:30:20 2002:

Nope.  What is the timestamp in the "From" line at the start of this
message in your mailbox?  That time should be the time that the mail was
actually delivered to your mailbox, which should be closely correlated
to when you see "You have new mail", if you're logged in and not idle.
That time should also be later than the timestamps in the "Received"
headers, which should track where mail was received by intermediate
points, which is typically where mail delivery delays happen.


#182 of 293 by rksjr on Tue Aug 20 21:24:25 2002:

Re #181: Even viewing Pine's "Display of full headers", I
can see nothing in the "From:" line after "...@cyberspace.org>".


#183 of 293 by gelinas on Wed Aug 21 02:37:10 2002:

It's not "From:" it's "From ".  However, pine may be showing it as
"Return-Path:".  In which case, look at the time in the next line, which
should begin "Received:".  Comparing that time with the time in each of the
following "Received:" lines should show where the delay occurred.


#184 of 293 by carson on Wed Aug 21 02:37:27 2002:

(nothing at the VERY top of the message?  just above the "Return-Path:"
line?  there's actually two "From:" lines in every e-mail, and the one to
which Marcus refers should be at the very beginning of the message.)


#185 of 293 by carson on Wed Aug 21 02:38:18 2002:

(Joe slipped in, and is more correct than I in stating that it's a "From"
line and not a "From:" line.  confused yet?)  :)


#186 of 293 by rksjr on Wed Aug 21 03:34:48 2002:

  I think I've found the "from" line everyone is referring
to, i.e. the line which begins "Received: (from".

  The following is the Pine "Display of full headers" for
the e-mail in consideration with the sender's name and
userid replaced by "[name]" and "[userid]" and the subject
line erased:

Received: (from [userid]@localhost) by grex.cyberspace.org 
(8.6.13/8.6.12) id
LAA19150 for rksjr@grex.cyberspace.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2002
11:08:56 -0400
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:08:56 -0400
From: [name] <[userid]@cyberspace.org>
Message-Id: <200208141508.LAA19150@grex.cyberspace.org>
To: rksjr@grex.cyberspace.org
Subject: [subject line erased]


#187 of 293 by carson on Wed Aug 21 04:06:14 2002:

(wild.  I just looked at some mail I have on Grex, and it *doesn't*
have a "From" line either.)


#188 of 293 by gelinas on Wed Aug 21 04:16:11 2002:

No, that's not the line we were talking about, but if that is all there is,
it's interesting.

The "From " at the beginning of a line is part of th "mbox" format and is why
a similarly placed "from" in the text of a message is preceded by an angle
bracket: ">From this, we see . . ."


#189 of 293 by polytarp on Wed Aug 21 11:43:12 2002:

joot:x:0:1:John Remmers' root:/a/r/e/remmers/joot:/bin/csh
That would appear to have a need-to-be-fixed-real-quick error.


#190 of 293 by davel on Wed Aug 21 12:43:22 2002:

Eh?  Looks fine to me.  (Unless you're being a grammatical purist & saying
that it should be "Remmers's" instead of "Remmers'" - in which case I can only
say that that's not a "need-to-be-fixed-real-quick error".)


#191 of 293 by remmers on Wed Aug 21 13:19:43 2002:

Guess it depends on which grammar books you believe.  Note that
'zoot' apparently subscribes to the opposite philosophy.


#192 of 293 by polytarp on Wed Aug 21 13:22:55 2002:

I'm just saying that you should fix it.

                REAL QUICK

Thanks.


#193 of 293 by remmers on Wed Aug 21 13:43:09 2002:

Nah.


#194 of 293 by jep on Wed Aug 21 17:21:29 2002:

Backtalk is running exceedingly slowly right now.  It took a few 
minutes just to display this item, with it's 11 new responses.


#195 of 293 by dpc on Thu Aug 22 18:56:07 2002:

Twice in the past week or so, e-mail to me from recycle.com
has been bounced by Grex.  My correspondent sent me hard-
copy of the bounce message, which reads as follows:

The original message was received at Tue, 20 Augs 2002 16:47:07 -0400
(EDT) from [192.168.254.13}

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<dpc@cyberspace.org>
(reason: 553 <dpc@cyberspace.org>... One generation passeth away,
and anothergeneration cometh: but the earth abideth for ever."

----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to grex.cyberspace.org.:
>>>RCPT To:<dpc@cyberspace.org>
<<< 553 <dpc@cyberspace.org>...One generation passeth away, 
and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
550 5.1.1 <dpc@cyberspace.org>... User unknown

End of message.  So what does *that* mean?


#196 of 293 by mdw on Thu Aug 22 20:43:39 2002:

It means that the machine that tried to talk to grex is so badly
configured it looks exactly like either a mail flooder or a spammer to
grex.  In fact, while these aren't things grex checked, the IP address
from which the last such failure "dpc@cyberspace.org>...One" came has no
reverse arpa ip-address to name DNS entry, and does not accept incoming
mail connections.  The particular check that was tripped here is an
important one for grex; this was tripped more than 2100 times in the
past 4 1/2 days, and at least at a quick glance at the logs, most of
those failures probably are spammers.

The kindest thing is probably to suggest that your correspondent find
another mail system run by people who know what they're doing.
Alternatively, you might ask your correspondent to ask his postmaster to
familiarize himself with RFC 2821, and especially section 3.6, and to
check his mail system with compliance to that section.


#197 of 293 by gull on Thu Aug 22 21:00:01 2002:

By the way, I finally figured out why replies I sent to a mailing list
I'm on kept tripping off the spam filters.  It turns out this mailing
list's software likes to insert spaces into Subject lines to make them
wrap prettily.  Subject lines with lots of spaces seem to be one of the
things Grex filters on.


#198 of 293 by carson on Thu Aug 22 21:05:43 2002:

(so does SpamAssassin, FWIW.)


#199 of 293 by mdw on Thu Aug 22 21:41:48 2002:

What mailing list software was this?


#200 of 293 by gull on Fri Aug 23 12:57:23 2002:

LISTSERV 1.8d


#201 of 293 by dpc on Fri Aug 23 20:42:24 2002:

Thanx for the help on both the "cornerhealth.org" problem and 
the "recycle.com" problem, folks.  The answers make sense,
even to someone technologically-challenged like me!


#202 of 293 by tod on Fri Aug 23 20:49:23 2002:

This response has been erased.



#203 of 293 by carson on Fri Aug 23 21:05:56 2002:

(I see that error often.  it only seems to be a problem when I try to ssh
from here.)


#204 of 293 by russ on Fri Aug 23 21:12:40 2002:

Just a note here... I'd say that spouting a meaningless Bible verse
instead of a descriptive message is very unfriendly to legitimate
but mis-configured mail senders.  A spammer isn't going to try to
fix things (Grex isn't important enough), but the lack of information
means that a legitimate sender *can't* fix things (especially if they
have no alternative channel to get information about the real cause
of the bounce, or no time to pursue it).


#205 of 293 by rksjr on Fri Aug 23 22:44:37 2002:

  Re #180 through #188: (This posting is intended to be
posting #205.) Regarding my not seeing any "You have new
mail." notices when there was new mail in my inbox, I am
able to observe the "You have mail." notice in only three
locations:

    (i.) the motd/log-in screen,

    (ii.) the Lynx home page screen, and

    (iii.) the bbs/PicoSpan introductory screen

(as well as an unread/no unread mail notice in my plan).

  Within the last three days I have discovered (via sending
test e-mails to myself) that:

    (i.) merely entering the Pine "Main Menu" (without
checking the inbox) turns-off the "You have new mail."
notice in both the motd/log-in screen and the Lynx home page
screen, i.e. it changes a "You have new mail." notice to a
"You have mail." notice. (I had incorrectedly assumed that
it would not.)

    (ii.) receiving new mail in my inbox does not change the
"You have mail." notice in the bbs/PicoSpan introductory
screen into a "You have new mail." notice. (I had
incorrectedly assumed that it would.)

  Therefore, my tentative hypothesis as to why I was not
seeing any "You have new mail." notices (and incorrectly
relying on their absence) when there was new mail in my
inbox is as follows.

  I had entered the Pine "Main Menu" (to access the compose
option), which turned-off the "You have new mail." notice in
the motd/log-in screen and the Lynx home page screen, and I
had been relying on the bbs/PicoSpan introductory screen
notice as well, thus generating my incorrect assumption that
I did not have new mail.

  On Sunday the 18th (when more mail arrived, this time from
outside the Grex system) a "You have new mail." notice
appeared in the motd/log-in screen, on which occasion I
discovered the mail that had probably been in my inbox since
Wednesday the 14th, through five loggings-in.

  Having perused relevant portions of items 105 and 295 in
the Information conference regarding defining mailmsg in my
.cfonce files and establishing "a call to 'newmail' in my
.login file", I am making progress toward solving the
aforementioned noticing deficiency in my configuration.

  Does anyone know why the default setting of the "You have
mail." notice in the bbs/PicoSpan introductory screen is
such that it is unaffected by the arrival of new mail in the
user's inbox?


#206 of 293 by polytarp on Fri Aug 23 23:18:21 2002:

I still noticed the same problem.  I really wish someone would fix that.

I might cry.


#207 of 293 by russ on Sun Aug 25 02:13:48 2002:

I suggest that the spam problem could be partially addressed by
deleting every e-mail whose main part has a "Content-transfer-encoding"
of base64.  This appears to be used exclusively to get around filters.


#208 of 293 by gelinas on Sun Aug 25 21:06:46 2002:

It is also used for MS-Word documents, which some people send to me for
quite legitimate reasons, even if I am not inclined to jump through the
necessary hoops to actually read such documents.

I might *want* to count such things "spam", but they are not.


#209 of 293 by russ on Mon Aug 26 10:49:06 2002:

Re #208:  Sometimes you can tell the difference between "multipart/mixed"
and a binary-encoded body just from the header.  That wouldn't have
worked on the spam I just got, but you could scan the body and see if
there is a plain-text or HTML section, or not.

If the main part of the mail is encoded as base64, rather than one or
more of the *attachments*, you'd never know what the recipient was
trying to send you anyway; all you'd have is the Subject: line.


#210 of 293 by gull on Mon Aug 26 12:51:19 2002:

Doesn't just about every MIME-encoded binary file get encoded as base64?


#211 of 293 by davel on Mon Aug 26 13:00:49 2002:

I think Russ's point was that those are included as attachments, with
filenames, rather than as the body of the message in base64 with no filename.
I don't know whether he's right that the latter are always spam, but that's
certainly been my experience.  But then again, I rarely am getting binary
files in email other than spam.


#212 of 293 by carson on Mon Aug 26 23:55:32 2002:

(SpamAssassin apparently decodes base64, although it assigns a hefty
point value for having to do so.)


#213 of 293 by mdw on Tue Aug 27 02:35:55 2002:

Grex can decode base64 to look for "big5" spam.  Apparently the chinese
have caught on; grex found 3 "possible" matches in the past week, but
nothing that it was willing to block.


#214 of 293 by jhudson on Tue Aug 27 16:47:42 2002:

If you REALLY want to find out exactly what the mail headers are,
more $MAIL should do it.


#215 of 293 by gull on Tue Aug 27 19:30:37 2002:

The mail spool is full.


#216 of 293 by davel on Wed Aug 28 12:25:22 2002:

Hmm.  It's still (or again) full:
Filesystem            kbytes    used   avail capacity  Mounted on
/dev/sd3h            1944365 1788367       0   102%    /var/spool/mail


#217 of 293 by jp2 on Wed Aug 28 13:11:46 2002:

This response has been erased.



#218 of 293 by gull on Wed Aug 28 13:35:36 2002:

It's still at 102%.  Pine is unhappy with this.


#219 of 293 by scott on Wed Aug 28 13:43:21 2002:

Valerie started a reap.


#220 of 293 by carson on Wed Aug 28 17:19:06 2002:

<carson wonders if accumulating spam and out-of-date accounts might 
have something to do with it>


#221 of 293 by bhelliom on Wed Aug 28 17:44:58 2002:

Well, the Grim Reaper's going to work as we speak, so I hear.


#222 of 293 by other on Wed Aug 28 18:21:40 2002:

in this case, the Jolly Reaper...


#223 of 293 by bhelliom on Wed Aug 28 20:19:20 2002:

Do you think she's actually enjoying it?


#224 of 293 by tsty on Thu Aug 29 05:26:21 2002:

of course, silly <g>.


#225 of 293 by keesan on Sat Sep 7 12:30:30 2002:

Is the full spool the reason why in the past few days, several times, I have
typed in a to: address and then Pine froze and I had to hang up and redial?


#226 of 293 by mdw on Sun Sep 8 07:52:29 2002:

I doubt it - that sounds like a line noise problem of some sort.


#227 of 293 by keesan on Tue Sep 10 00:25:31 2002:

Why only when typing in the To: address?


#228 of 293 by mdw on Tue Sep 10 06:19:35 2002:

Beats me - but sometimes line noise *is* data sensitive.  If it's just a
pine problem, then things like ^\ ^C ^Z might be useful.  You might have
to do a "stty sane^J" if this leaves you in raw mode.


#229 of 293 by keesan on Wed Sep 11 23:55:40 2002:

I had to do an Alt-X to exit Kermit, hang up, and start over.
It has not happened again recently.


#230 of 293 by jep on Thu Sep 12 02:45:59 2002:

I tried to use the "Preferences" in abalone to change my colors to the 
blue scheme, and got a backtalk crash.


#231 of 293 by jep on Thu Sep 12 02:46:41 2002:

Also: there are no fw settings available in abalone.


#232 of 293 by other on Fri Sep 13 14:22:03 2002:

Current date and time: Fri Sep 13 10:19:30 EDT 2002

 10:19am  up 2 days, 21:27,  38 users,  load average: 12.95, 12.31, 12.00

0 waiting, 38 remote + 2 local users; 72 max remote users


#233 of 293 by mdw on Fri Sep 13 22:31:24 2002:

Mail bomber + something evil from Brazil.


#234 of 293 by mcnally on Sat Sep 14 02:16:56 2002:

 > + something evil from Brazil.

 Hopefully not a Hitler clone..


#235 of 293 by janc on Sat Sep 14 03:56:48 2002:

Fixed the "preferences" crash in abalone.

I get fairwitness settings in abalone.  See the starred items on the
pulldown menu.


#236 of 293 by russ on Mon Sep 16 01:17:45 2002:

Since I've received no response to my e-mail to "staff", I feel compelled
to post here...

Grex is currently blocking e-mail from a rather popular (and to some
of us, rather important) Michigan site.  Perhaps this is due to the
fact that it changed IP addresses, which may have given it one which
was formerly used by a spammer.  Nevertheless, this IP is no longer
associated with spammers.

This problem has been on-going since roughly Wednesday.

Will the Grex staff please:

1.)     Unblock this site, and
2.)     Inform the compilers of the spamblock list that their
        information is out of date.


#237 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Sep 16 01:20:43 2002:

That's the problem with spamblock lists.  They're maintained by private
individuals with their own criteria and biases, and no accountability.


#238 of 293 by carson on Mon Sep 16 01:39:00 2002:

(random Michigan site?)


#239 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Sep 16 02:03:30 2002:

It isn't M-Net.  I'm not sure why Russ is being secretive about the site name,
but since he might have a reason, I won't say what it is.  It isn't a spammer,
though, and it's maintained by someone at least as technically skileld as Grex
staff are.


#240 of 293 by jazz on Mon Sep 16 13:22:30 2002:

        Given that spam is a bit more than just an inconvenience for sites with
a limited amount of bandwidth, and that most spam-blocking efforts are run
on a volunteer basis with only the absence of complaints as a reward, I don't
think that looking for accountability is the right thing to be doing.


#241 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Sep 16 13:24:34 2002:

I disagree.


#242 of 293 by jazz on Mon Sep 16 13:31:08 2002:

        With which point?


#243 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Sep 16 13:35:17 2002:

That we should ignore accountability just because they're volunteers.  One
of these morons black-holed a mail server at UM for years just because it had
once been hijacked by a spammer.  This meant that it was a crapshoot whether
your mail from umich would get through to certain sites or not -- it depended
on which mail server happened to handle it.  Repeated emails from UM staff
didn't fix the problem.


#244 of 293 by jazz on Mon Sep 16 13:47:55 2002:

        That's a different sort of situation than what we're talking about
here, though I do wonder why the problem was unhandled for years - did the
maintainers of the blackhole refuse to correct the oversight, or ignore
requests?  If so, then I'd say that alone makes it a different case.


#245 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Sep 16 13:51:53 2002:

My understanding is that they ignored requests, but I wasn't directly
involved, I just heard about it from the people trying to take care of it.

The point is that when you use someone else's blacklist, you're giving them
a lot of power over who your users can exchange mail with.  That's a problem,
given that there are no guarantees about how the list is maintained.  If this
particula machine has been black-holed, someone's overzealous.


#246 of 293 by fuzzman on Mon Sep 16 14:21:54 2002:

Any reason why the load average has been enormously high lately?

 10:20am  up 5 days, 21:28,  54 users,  load average: 23.67, 23.22, 22.45


#247 of 293 by scott on Mon Sep 16 14:23:14 2002:

As a staffer I'm a bit insulted by Russ & Joe's attitude.  We act in good
faith, and when somebody manages to wade through the piles of email to 'staff'
the block will likely be removed.

However, if you're going to be a dick about this then so am I.  What system,
and why is Russ desirous of hiding it?


#248 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Sep 16 16:02:22 2002:

Whoa, hang on.  I wasn't criticizing Grex's staff, I was criticizing the
people who put together black hole lists.  I had the impression that you guys
were using one that someone else maintains.  The rant was brought on by
jazz's post suggesting that since those people are volunteers, they
shouldn't be held accountable.  They should be, because they cause a lot
of damage and have been known to cop bad attitudes about it.

In the case of Grex's staff, I assumed you guys would fix the problem as
soon as someone got the chance.  Unlike Russ, I'm aware that you guys are
all volunteers and that Grex isn't the only thing you do.  I've been
there.  I've never seen Grex's staff cop a bad attitude about a technical
fix.  About policy issues, yes, but I don't hold that against you in this
context.

Russ may be hiding the name out of fear that someone like polycrap will
spoof tons of mail from it just to be funny.  I'll email you.


#249 of 293 by jp2 on Mon Sep 16 16:34:43 2002:

This response has been erased.



#250 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Sep 16 16:57:05 2002:

I'm saying I don't think they should be trusted without accountability.  I
wouldn't personally use those lists because of the lack of it.  They
should also be accountable in the courts if they black hole someone who
shouldn't be and refuse to remove them (they probably are already).

(DISCLAIMER:  I am not talking about the Grex staff.)



#251 of 293 by jp2 on Mon Sep 16 16:59:36 2002:

This response has been erased.



#252 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Sep 16 17:04:09 2002:

Look at what I said, and tell me where I said you shouldn't be allowed to use
a black hole list.

I'm saying that I wouldn't trust them, and that I think the people who put
them together should be civilly liable if they black-hole someone who
shouldn't be, and refuse to correct the problem quickly.


#253 of 293 by jp2 on Mon Sep 16 17:30:49 2002:

This response has been erased.



#254 of 293 by gull on Mon Sep 16 18:22:16 2002:

I thought Grex maintained its own blacklist, instead of using someone
else's?

Personally, I use a blacklist service for one of my email accounts.  I do
take a cursory look at the subject headers before deleting the mail it
flags, though.  I don't see this as an infringement of anyone's rights.  I
also throw out mail that looks like credit card offers without opening it. 
Same thing.


#255 of 293 by scott on Mon Sep 16 18:43:20 2002:

Grex maintains its own list.  We've recently discussed using an outside list
to reduce the amount of work spent on our own list.  But we also need to be
able to react quickly - just like yesterday.


#256 of 293 by jazz on Mon Sep 16 20:21:31 2002:

        No, I didn't say that volunteers shouldn't be accountable for what they
do because they're volunteers, I said:

        Given that spam is a bit more than just an inconvenience for sites
with
 a limited amount of bandwidth, and that most spam-blocking efforts are run
 on a volunteer basis with only the absence of complaints as a reward, I don't
 think that looking for accountability is the right thing to be doing.

        Translated as much for public benefit as I can, "there are more useful
things to do than blame people".


#257 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Sep 16 20:36:24 2002:

Re #253:  They should be.  Listing someone as a spammer is defamatory, and
          in the case of a blacklist provided to the public causes actual
          damage.


#258 of 293 by tpryan on Mon Sep 16 22:13:46 2002:

        ?Grex is banning mail from a Founder's machine?


#259 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Sep 16 22:15:12 2002:

Based on Scott's response, not since it was brought to their attention.


#260 of 293 by jmsaul on Mon Sep 16 22:34:34 2002:

Grex may have its own version of the polytarp spam warming up:

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:24:03 -0400
From: Tomoko Reborn <tomoko2@cyberspace.org>
To: jmsaul@cyberspace.org

Hello
Nice day
see you
To be continued
Tomoko Zombie

Got two copies of that.


#261 of 293 by mynxcat on Mon Sep 16 22:40:46 2002:

This response has been erased.



#262 of 293 by scott on Mon Sep 16 22:43:02 2002:

Already been squished.  It was just going to people as they logged in.


#263 of 293 by mynxcat on Mon Sep 16 22:45:05 2002:

This response has been erased.



#264 of 293 by jmsaul on Tue Sep 17 02:12:17 2002:

Cool.


#265 of 293 by fuzzman on Tue Sep 17 13:59:39 2002:

Load average is now over 17.


#266 of 293 by tpryan on Tue Sep 17 15:09:36 2002:

        Mail from site that I was pretty sure was being blocked
has now started flowing again.
        Thank you for any attention given this.


#267 of 293 by russ on Tue Sep 17 20:55:15 2002:

Just FYI, I named the site in my e-mail to staff.  I didn't feel that
it was necessary to mention it publicly (why should I tell a vandal
what site is used by a bunch of Grexers?).  And Scott's attitude to what
was a very reasonable and reasonably-phrased request is out of line.

The problem is fixed now, but it took almost 6 days.


#268 of 293 by scott on Tue Sep 17 21:02:01 2002:

(FWIW, I like Russ in person but his responses here always strike me as
pompous and insulting.)


#269 of 293 by pfv on Wed Sep 18 16:33:03 2002:


First it was spam from tomoko2, then it's deviltom. Both are
from 61.205.218.237 (z237.61-205-218.ppp.wakwak.ne.jp) - 

Can we wax this site for awhile or something?



#270 of 293 by mynxcat on Wed Sep 18 16:54:56 2002:

This response has been erased.



#271 of 293 by pfv on Wed Sep 18 17:04:59 2002:

and, now..
        newuser |  61.205.218.237|   ttyt6|Wed Sep 18 12:58:43 2002

*sigh*


#272 of 293 by russ on Wed Sep 18 22:24:14 2002:

As a refresher, here's the request I made in response 236:

>Will the Grex staff please:
>
>1.)    Unblock this site, and
>2.)    Inform the compilers of the spamblock list that their
>       information is out of date.

Somehow, Scott found this "attitude" insulting in #247:

>As a staffer I'm a bit insulted by Russ & Joe's attitude.  We act in good
>faith, and when somebody manages to wade through the piles of email to 'staff'
>the block will likely be removed.

(I tried to expedite matters because I knew that a bunch of Grexers
were being affected, and that traffic that people might find important
was being irretrievably lost.  Not knowing that Grex did not use an
outside blocklist, I thought that spreading this information to the
maintainer could help list members on other sites too.)  Then he added:

>However, if you're going to be a dick about this then so am I.  What system,
>and why is Russ desirous of hiding it?

This was a full day after I'd emailed staff (including Scott, I assume)
to tell them what site was being mis-blocked; my e-mail was almost a
verbatim repeat of response 236, with the site name included.  I hadn't
"hidden" a thing from anyone who mattered, he just hadn't looked.

Then he winds up with this:

>(FWIW, I like Russ in person but his responses here always strike me as
>pompous and insulting.)

To which I can only reply:  Scott, if you look for something hard enough
on the insistence that it HAS to exist, you're going to find it even if
it doesn't.  I'm not going to walk on eggshells because of it.


#273 of 293 by scott on Wed Sep 18 23:43:27 2002:

Wow.  Well, I have no intentions of being abrasive, but it does happen in
text-only communications (and sometimes I lose my temper).  My apologies.

I'd like to make a point about the staff list, though.  It gets deluged with
mail every day.  I'm not even on it anymore; I wouldn't have stayed a staff
member if I'd been required to get it.  In return, I do a lot more
vandal-squashing and hardware visits.


#274 of 293 by other on Thu Sep 19 02:49:07 2002:

Frankly, I was puzzled at scott's ire in this thread, but I figured it 
would pass...


#275 of 293 by mynxcat on Thu Sep 19 03:15:32 2002:

This response has been erased.



#276 of 293 by bhelliom on Thu Sep 19 13:44:40 2002:

I understand entirely.  Given how hard staff works to keep things 
running, why should anyone be surprised when a staff person feels a 
little annoyed and on the defensive when users seem to insinuate that 
they aren't working fast enough, hard enough, or at all?


#277 of 293 by jmsaul on Thu Sep 19 15:43:43 2002:

It's kind of ironic coming from Scott, though.  (Just like this is kind of
ironic coming from me.)


#278 of 293 by pfv on Thu Sep 19 15:48:03 2002:

Yeah, the staffers bust hump.. I agree

On the flipside: folks have a clue who might be staff; can see some via !w;
and sorta' expect someone might be alive. Thus, while even the ones
"in-the-know" *KNOW* the staff maillist is prolly out of hand, subconciously
they are still going to expect some "signs of life" ;-)

(in fact, results seem to often magically occur when a bbs post is made -
but other days, an email is even faster - go figure).


#279 of 293 by davel on Thu Sep 19 20:03:43 2002:

Dialing in (to 5041), repeatedly we get:
        Welcome to Grex!  It may take a few seconds to connect.
followed by an immediate disconnect.


#280 of 293 by scott on Thu Sep 19 20:08:41 2002:

Power problem.  Grex is now back up.


#281 of 293 by pfv on Thu Sep 19 20:19:52 2002:

the dufus was back and hammered sendmail shortly after grex powered up,
too..



#282 of 293 by russ on Fri Sep 20 02:29:51 2002:

Staff DOES bust their butts to keep this thing running.  I appreciate
that.  But nobody appreciates being put down for something they did
not say, or failing to know something which requires insider status.
(Knowing who reads staff mail is one of those insider things.)

One thing that everyone knows is that Agora is read by more people
than the staff mailing list, so a posting here has the dual effect
of joggling elbows and notifying Grex users (who may also be affected,
but not know why or by what) that something is up.


#283 of 293 by tsty on Fri Sep 20 08:05:08 2002:

therefore, teh coop.cf .


#284 of 293 by jazz on Fri Sep 20 13:32:50 2002:

        If the staff mailbox is so congested that it's difficult for
responsible staffers to be able to read and address issues, then that's a
system problem in and of itself, as well.


#285 of 293 by pfv on Sat Sep 21 14:45:40 2002:

I just wanted to say: "Thank you, Staff..".

The loads are the lowest I've seen in a looong time - between 2 and 5 today,
and under 12 yesterday.

Whatever you folks did, it sure makes grex feel "crisp".


#286 of 293 by slynne on Sun Sep 22 13:08:48 2002:

Grex is mighty speedy this morning :)


#287 of 293 by tsty on Mon Sep 23 20:30:53 2002:

  44 users,  load average: 14.17, 15.58, 15.85
  
i've been seeing loads like this - and much higher - a whoe lot
more frequenstly. once a month doesn't seem too far out of line , but
5 times a day certainnly does.
  
i email staff with the load average int he subject line as an fyi-of-the-moment
in case someone is semi-watching and/or do document the time/date.
  
is grex flodded with serious cpu users doing nifty things, or hordes
of mongols trying crash-tricks, or ... other?


#288 of 293 by scott on Mon Sep 23 20:49:03 2002:

Rest assured that staff is aware of the load averages.


#289 of 293 by carson on Mon Sep 23 22:22:42 2002:

(there also have been a number of excessive mailings, both on- and offsite,
of which TS may not be aware.)


#290 of 293 by scott on Mon Sep 23 23:49:04 2002:

Eric Bassey (other) requested more info on the load averages, and since
it's all basically a stupid situation there's no reason not to explain what's
going on:
The CPU stuff is pretty much unavoidable; basically somebody was using Grex
either to serve some p2p files or something else which caused a lot of random
people to try to connect.  We're still getting a lot of failed connections
to an account which has been locked for several days as a result, and it
takes a bit of CPU to deal with each attempted to connection.

Basically we just have to wait this one out, and it has been gradually dying
off as expected.


#291 of 293 by tsty on Tue Sep 24 05:56:09 2002:

kewl - thankxx staff and carson too - i had been unaware.


#292 of 293 by jep on Tue Sep 24 22:46:39 2002:

I've been able to send mail back and forth between Grex and M-Net.  Is 
there really a block in place?  I have all my mail forwarded to M-Net 
and have exchanged e-mails with keesan over the last couple of days.

I would hope the mail capability would be restored soon, if it hasn't 
been already.  I understand how annoying the trash in the e-mail has 
been, but the mail connection is important to some of us.


#293 of 293 by phat3 on Wed May 21 23:15:01 2003:

i don't know how to use this yet.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: