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