You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   130-154   155-179   180-204 
 205-229   230-254   255-260        
 
Author Message
25 new of 260 responses total.
keesan
response 155 of 260: Mark Unseen   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?
mcnally
response 156 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 1 17:29 UTC 2006

 It's a different blacklist than before.
keesan
response 157 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 1 20:56 UTC 2006

So how did we get onto this different blacklist after blocking new users from
sending outgoing mail?
mcnally
response 158 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 1 21:43 UTC 2006

 I've no idea and it's not likely they'll explain.  Maybe it was the same mail
 that we blocked but this list has a longer management cycle and were slower
 getting around to blocking us.

 Given the profusion of such lists it's nearly impossible to know how they
 all work.
keesan
response 159 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 2 02:48 UTC 2006

We were blocked by AOL earlier.  Can we write and ask to be unblocked?
rcurl
response 160 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 2 03:50 UTC 2006

We are still blocked by AOL. I just got a message there returned. AOL
is ubiquitous: e-mail service from Grex is much degraded by a block to AOL.
mziemba
response 161 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 2 05:50 UTC 2006



naftee
response 162 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 2 05:50 UTC 2006

whoa !
mziemba
response 163 of 260: Mark Unseen   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?
gull
response 164 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 2 06:42 UTC 2006

Re resp:160: AOL's block list is notoriously overzealous and hard to
stay off of.  AOL's email service shouldn't be considered reliable by
anyone.
keesan
response 165 of 260: Mark Unseen   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.  
twenex
response 166 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 2 15:36 UTC 2006

Wow. How unpolitically-correct of you. You're right though.
keesan
response 167 of 260: Mark Unseen   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.
jadecat
response 168 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 2 15:51 UTC 2006

There are many, MANY "... For Dummies!" books out there.
twenex
response 169 of 260: Mark Unseen   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.
keesan
response 170 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 2 15:56 UTC 2006

Idiot implies you are incapable of learning, dummy that you are uninformed
but not unintelligent.
cross
response 171 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 2 16:45 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

marcvh
response 172 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 2 16:58 UTC 2006

Both dummy and idiot imply someone who is unintelligent, although idiot
is a bit more extreme and used to imply a profound mental disability.
The word for someone who is uninformed is "ignoramus."
rcurl
response 173 of 260: Mark Unseen   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. 
twenex
response 174 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 3 15:47 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

twenex
response 175 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 3 15:48 UTC 2006

Grex is fixed. Hail Ming! er, STeve!
tod
response 176 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 3 17:36 UTC 2006

Thanks for the update on the system downtime!
crimson
response 177 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 4 02:16 UTC 2006

From WordNet: 
Dummy: 1. a person who does not talk
2. an ignorant or foolish person

Idiot: 1. a person of subnormal intelligence

Ignoramus: 1. an ignorant person

Still, I'd rather be called a "dummy" -- and "wilfully ignorant" is as sharp an
insult as you can give (if you want to do so) in my book.
scholar
response 178 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 4 03:05 UTC 2006

/me humps Katrisa's leg
rcurl
response 179 of 260: Mark Unseen   Feb 5 19:14 UTC 2006

I have abandoned my own spam filters in PINE on CAEN and am now using 
their server-side Brightmail filter. I don't know the details of its 
operation, but I gather CAEN subscribes to a spam list - IP addresses I 
think - and applies them to filter. It works very well. There is less than 
1% "good" e-mail sent to the Junk folder, and similarly the junk in the 
good mail is very small. I think I still need to scan the junk folder for 
anything good, but may decide that it isn't worth the effort, and just 
accept the loss of a few good items.

Can Grex use Brightmail?
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   130-154   155-179   180-204 
 205-229   230-254   255-260        
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss