|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
carson
|
|
response 203 of 293:
| 
Aug 23 21:05 UTC 2002 |
(I see that error often. it only seems to be a problem when I try to ssh
from here.)
|
russ
|
|
response 204 of 293:
|
Aug 23 21:12 UTC 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).
|
rksjr
|
|
response 205 of 293:
|
Aug 23 22:44 UTC 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?
|
polytarp
|
|
response 206 of 293:
|
Aug 23 23:18 UTC 2002 |
I still noticed the same problem. I really wish someone would fix that.
I might cry.
|
russ
|
|
response 207 of 293:
|
Aug 25 02:13 UTC 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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 208 of 293:
|
Aug 25 21:06 UTC 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.
|
russ
|
|
response 209 of 293:
|
Aug 26 10:49 UTC 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.
|
gull
|
|
response 210 of 293:
|
Aug 26 12:51 UTC 2002 |
Doesn't just about every MIME-encoded binary file get encoded as base64?
|
davel
|
|
response 211 of 293:
|
Aug 26 13:00 UTC 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.
|
carson
|
|
response 212 of 293:
|
Aug 26 23:55 UTC 2002 |
(SpamAssassin apparently decodes base64, although it assigns a hefty
point value for having to do so.)
|
mdw
|
|
response 213 of 293:
|
Aug 27 02:35 UTC 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.
|
jhudson
|
|
response 214 of 293:
|
Aug 27 16:47 UTC 2002 |
If you REALLY want to find out exactly what the mail headers are,
more $MAIL should do it.
|
gull
|
|
response 215 of 293:
|
Aug 27 19:30 UTC 2002 |
The mail spool is full.
|
davel
|
|
response 216 of 293:
|
Aug 28 12:25 UTC 2002 |
Hmm. It's still (or again) full:
Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on
/dev/sd3h 1944365 1788367 0 102% /var/spool/mail
|
jp2
|
|
response 217 of 293:
|
Aug 28 13:11 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 218 of 293:
|
Aug 28 13:35 UTC 2002 |
It's still at 102%. Pine is unhappy with this.
|
scott
|
|
response 219 of 293:
|
Aug 28 13:43 UTC 2002 |
Valerie started a reap.
|
carson
|
|
response 220 of 293:
|
Aug 28 17:19 UTC 2002 |
<carson wonders if accumulating spam and out-of-date accounts might
have something to do with it>
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 221 of 293:
|
Aug 28 17:44 UTC 2002 |
Well, the Grim Reaper's going to work as we speak, so I hear.
|
other
|
|
response 222 of 293:
|
Aug 28 18:21 UTC 2002 |
in this case, the Jolly Reaper...
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 223 of 293:
|
Aug 28 20:19 UTC 2002 |
Do you think she's actually enjoying it?
|
tsty
|
|
response 224 of 293:
|
Aug 29 05:26 UTC 2002 |
of course, silly <g>.
|
keesan
|
|
response 225 of 293:
|
Sep 7 12:30 UTC 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?
|
mdw
|
|
response 226 of 293:
|
Sep 8 07:52 UTC 2002 |
I doubt it - that sounds like a line noise problem of some sort.
|
keesan
|
|
response 227 of 293:
|
Sep 10 00:25 UTC 2002 |
Why only when typing in the To: address?
|
