Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
It finally showed up in my email the next message after this. Is kind of funny, considering the content, heh? -- Rob Studdert wrote: On 28 Aug 2004 at 0:48, graywolf wrote: Now, couldn't we discuss this for a while? GRIN! Most folks seem to think they are directly connected to the list server. LOL. I just received this message (along with another 70 or so dating from the 28th) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Tom, I agree that spam filtering is a very likely cause for messages to disappear, but then again there's the problem of repeated messages. I think there must be more than one problem at work here... If a mail router close to PDML (say two hops away) has problems with eg. flooding, that could explain many of the problems we observe on the list in one go. Messages can be delayed for a variable amount of time, depending on the load of the victim server, and may loose messages while flooded. If it uses Sendmail to propagate the messages, it may also loose track (during floods) of which messages are sent, and start all over again from the top of the queue. Resends can also occur if the victim server fails to send a confirmation of reception back to the previous server in the chain. Then the previous server will assume it lost and resend it after a while. Then, when the server gets on top of the load again, both messages are propagated. This may of course happen with messages destined TO the PDML server as well. It would give much the same results, but to fewer users. I'm also sure Doug is aware of this and keeps the path clean as far into cyberspace as he can. Jostein I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet LOL -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Now, couldn't we discuss this for a while? GRIN! Most folks seem to think they are directly connected to the list server. E-mail is weird. I remember getting a e-mail from a friend who lived a few blocks away (in Charlotte, NC, USA) and seeing by the routing info that it had come to me via Australia, and a few points in between. Sometimes you can get a message from both directions at the same time. For instance I could send you an e-mail there in Norway, and it would propagate around the world and arrive almost simultaneously from England via Canada and Iceland, and from Germany via Russia, Japan, and the Phillipines. When that happens the mail server is supposed to note that they both have the same message number and toss one in the bit bucket. Sometimes that does not happen. If your e-mail client is smart enough it will refuse the extra, but sometimes it fails to do that. Then there are those messages that some server somewhere in the world for God only knows what reason decides to change the message number. Need I go on, and on, and on...? Yes, I know you know all this, Jostein, but maybe it well get through to some of the less knowledgeable list members that e-mail is really complicated system. -- Jostein wrote: Tom, I agree that spam filtering is a very likely cause for messages to disappear, but then again there's the problem of repeated messages. I think there must be more than one problem at work here... If a mail router close to PDML (say two hops away) has problems with eg. flooding, that could explain many of the problems we observe on the list in one go. Messages can be delayed for a variable amount of time, depending on the load of the victim server, and may loose messages while flooded. If it uses Sendmail to propagate the messages, it may also loose track (during floods) of which messages are sent, and start all over again from the top of the queue. Resends can also occur if the victim server fails to send a confirmation of reception back to the previous server in the chain. Then the previous server will assume it lost and resend it after a while. Then, when the server gets on top of the load again, both messages are propagated. This may of course happen with messages destined TO the PDML server as well. It would give much the same results, but to fewer users. I'm also sure Doug is aware of this and keeps the path clean as far into cyberspace as he can. Jostein I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet LOL -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet LOL Shel From: Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 8/26/2004 8:41:03 AM Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] Peter J. Alling wrote: This is my third copy of this one as well, Shel's prose is deathless but this is ridicules. Again, this is because the poster (Shel in this case) assumed that because they hadn't received a copy of their message, the list wasn't working. So they sent it several times. Guys - there is *no* guaranteed delivery time for internet email. The probability of a message never arriving is much less than the probability of it being delayed, and just because *you* haven't received it doesn't mean that nobody else has. So be patient. Please. :-) S
RE: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
No worries, Shel. I've been having the same problem. I unsubbed then re-subbed with my YahooMail account, and got no response to either request. I subbed from this Hotmail account, and got a response, plus about 3 posts from other people (I hadn't received a post on Yahoo since last night). I posted two myself, and still don't see them. I have no idea if they're in the archives or not. I wondered if the problem was with yahoo, but now that it's still happening on Hotmail, it's obviously something wrong with the list. I'm just going to chuck it, unsub for the weekend (I'm going away tomorrow anyway - biking to Kingston to see the kids - 200km on a bike!), so I'll just try subscribing when I get back to see how things are going... cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:28:33 -0700 Odd, it's not shown up once on my copy of the list. I sent a couple figuring it was lost in cyberspace. Didn't see it in the archives either, although subsequent posts appeared there. Sorry for any annoyance I may have caused. From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is my third copy of this one as well, Shel's prose is deathless but this is ridicules. Shel Belinkoff wrote: After a long hiatus from the darkroom _ Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new MSN Search! Check it out!
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
I think it's called the telephone. Amazing what they think of... Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet LOL Shel From: Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 8/26/2004 8:41:03 AM Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] Peter J. Alling wrote: This is my third copy of this one as well, Shel's prose is deathless but this is ridicules. Again, this is because the poster (Shel in this case) assumed that because they hadn't received a copy of their message, the list wasn't working. So they sent it several times. Guys - there is *no* guaranteed delivery time for internet email. The probability of a message never arriving is much less than the probability of it being delayed, and just because *you* haven't received it doesn't mean that nobody else has. So be patient. Please. :-) S -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet LOL -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Does that explain why so many of my posts are not even making it to the archives (leading me to believe that they aren't getting to the list at all?). Besides, on both Yahoo and Hotmail, spam is supposed to go into a spam box, so one can decide whether to delete or open (and then advise the mail server to let future stuff through from that address). I haven't gotten anything in my spam boxes from PDML yet... cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:35:07 -0400 I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet LOL -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html _ Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
RE: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
My problem seems to be something other than Anti-SPAM, many of the messages I send don't get to the list and many other folks messages don't get to me. I control my filtering and it is all off on this account since I set this account up for PDML traffic only. It seems more that the list server gets too busy sometimes to recieve mail from, or forward mail to, list subscribers. (This could also be router overloads in between, but less likely.) This happens to our servers on occasion (I work for an ISP), that's always an indication that it's time to upgrade existing servers or add another server to the cluster. Don -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet LOL -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
I am not talking about filtering locally, Don. I am talking about filtering at many mailservers across the internet. Denial of service attacks were abounding and something had to be done. I know that the amount of spam I was receiving dropped to almost nothing a couple of months back, and I am getting very little now, only one or two a day. I used to get about 100/day on this account. Generally it is a good thing, but I think some of them went a little overboard on it and are trashing ordinary email as well. -- Don Sanderson wrote: My problem seems to be something other than Anti-SPAM, many of the messages I send don't get to the list and many other folks messages don't get to me. I control my filtering and it is all off on this account since I set this account up for PDML traffic only. It seems more that the list server gets too busy sometimes to recieve mail from, or forward mail to, list subscribers. (This could also be router overloads in between, but less likely.) This happens to our servers on occasion (I work for an ISP), that's always an indication that it's time to upgrade existing servers or add another server to the cluster. Don -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet LOL -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Unfortunately I'm quite familiar with DOS attacks and we have certainly implemented safeguards. As far as the list and I are concerned, the only servers involved should be mail.donsauction.com and mail.pdml.net. Both of these are virtual servers, simply meaning one server is shared by many domains, and goes by many names. It's easy to overload this type of setup if the domains/server ratio is allowed to get too high. We try to have no more than 250 domains on one server, less if many of them are very active. Filtering shouldn't really play a part in my messages getting lost, unless it's in the implementation on the pdml.net server. Don -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] I am not talking about filtering locally, Don. I am talking about filtering at many mailservers across the internet. Denial of service attacks were abounding and something had to be done. I know that the amount of spam I was receiving dropped to almost nothing a couple of months back, and I am getting very little now, only one or two a day. I used to get about 100/day on this account. Generally it is a good thing, but I think some of them went a little overboard on it and are trashing ordinary email as well. -- Don Sanderson wrote: My problem seems to be something other than Anti-SPAM, many of the messages I send don't get to the list and many other folks messages don't get to me. I control my filtering and it is all off on this account since I set this account up for PDML traffic only. It seems more that the list server gets too busy sometimes to recieve mail from, or forward mail to, list subscribers. (This could also be router overloads in between, but less likely.) This happens to our servers on occasion (I work for an ISP), that's always an indication that it's time to upgrade existing servers or add another server to the cluster. Don -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet LOL -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:46:48 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet LOL We have one. It's called the Gossip Fence. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
