At 11:06 AM +0900 10/5/06, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Then each subsequent mail found a 'cached' block and was itself
> > blocked and also updated the cache expiration. When I stopped
> > sending for over a week, the cached entry finally expired.
>
> This would be a serious violation of cache semantics, though. If the
> bug occurred at the DNS level, AT&T would have been in a world of pain.
Yeah, but during the years I was working at AOL, I frequently saw all
sorts of really bizarre stuff that AT&T was doing, and I would not be
at all surprised if they actually did exactly what Mark suggested.
There are other ways to explain the same kind of behaviour, but I
certainly wouldn't put it past them.
--
Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755
Founding Individual Sponsor of LOPSA. See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.
------------------------------------------------------
Mailman-Users mailing list
Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Security Policy:
http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
