Re: TBUDL Bandwidth
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 12:33:29PM +0100, Marck D Pearlstone wrote: So, at 1KB/sec that means a .775 second overhead per message to you. That's ¤ 0.000222 per message. this calculation doesn't include 'unable to allocate memory problem' on list machine :-))) btw, without all of these luxuries (listar's features: footer, header, humanize-* etc..etc.. ), most of mime or quoted-printable problems could be avoided. at the end, all TB! users could evaluate all of TB! functionalities on this list! :-) everyone's happy. All of rfc2369-mumble option on list config should be enough. Fortunately, TB! recognize these stuffs too. Yes! This is my KISS campaign ha..ha.. -flash Current Ver: 1.61 FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
Re: TBUDL Bandwidth
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 03:33:03AM +0700, Syafril Hermansyah wrote: I think what he meant to say was ...Who have access to e-mail but not the www. Yupe, it is common in big company. If that is the case, I consider subscribing to TB* lists using such a company email address is impolite. I suggest to unsub this kind of user from TB* lists. One should use this kind of account for his job related correspondences only. -flash Current Ver: 1.61 FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
Re: List problems?
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 10:51:53AM +0100, Jernej Simonèiè wrote: OK, the problem seems to be with worldess.net: There was a temporary DNS problem, i.e worldless.net couldn't resolve your mx servers. It's OK now. Hope that this email could reach your mailbox before I finish typing g Regards, Flash -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: header
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 01:30:10AM +0200, Roelof Otten wrote: I would like to insert a Sender: header in some messages, is such possible with a macro? Sender: header MUST appear in the message if originator of the message (i.e From: ) contains multiple addresses or single address in which different from mailbox originator. If the value of those to headers are identical, then Sender: header SHOULD NOT appear on the message. Ref.: RFC2822 Regards, Flash -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d
Re: header
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 11:17:49AM +0200, Roelof Otten wrote: fwn Sender: header MUST appear in the message if originator of the fwn message (i.e From: ) contains multiple addresses or single address fwn in which different from mailbox originator. Yep, that's the reason. I mean: it would be a bad idea if it's programmable. MUA/MTA should provide that header automagically. Regards, Flash -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d
Re: header
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 01:32:11PM +0200, Roelof Otten wrote: How should any program know which my address is mine and which not? The Bat! 'thinks' that my address is ok, otherwise I wouldn't have used it. My mail-server thinks it's ok, cause it's valid. I think I'm not talking about how s*ck is smtp/mail in general. I'm talking about 'consistency'. That said. Whoever own the address, whatever the address, it's real address or not (i.e fake address), those all completely different strory. But, MTA/MUA should follow the standard (i.e RFC). Period. So it should be programmable. No, because it would create any possibilities for someone to create a mess. Regards, Flash -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d
Re: Threads
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 11:54:25PM +0700, Syafril Hermansyah wrote: For personal mail/communication no problem, but for Mailing List it's different...we talk to all members not only to one person :-) In that good old days, people believe that, in general, one should be permissive in what one accepts, and restrictive in what one sends. Regards, Flash -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d
Re: failure notice ??
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 07:17:51PM +0800, Thomas F wrote: The server on Marck's side (or his ISP, rather) has a problem. Each message sent to his address is rejected. Furthermore, instead of bouncing to the list admin (as would be correct), that server bounces to the original sender. So, if you post a message on the list, the list server will send to all members including Marck, Marck's ISP has a problem, the notification is being sent to you instead of dutaint. ACK. I have no way of contacting Marck on another email address or by phone. Syafril and Allie have received bounces themselves, No. They're not. But, they're already receive your message to TBUDL :-) R [EMAIL PROTECTED]: R This message is looping: it already has my Delivered-To line. (#5.4.6) Clearly the problem is at free-online's server. I don't think so. Free-online use qmail. qmail put delivered-to header only once, then if it get the same message (which has same delivered-to header), it would love to think that it is a loop problem. For some reasons, Marck's server (MDaemon) do some header rewriting, (i.e rewrite return-path header) which cause this problem. -flash -- __ Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: failure notice ??
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 08:46:13PM +0800, Thomas F wrote: They posted on TBUDL before, so they will have received the same bounce every poster (including yourself just now) receives. ;-) No, I'm not. Seems that Marck already know the problem. Ah, I have no idea about MDaemon. So you probably know more than I. As I said, nothing we (the humble list users) can do. ;-) So am I. What I know for sure is that qmail has no header rewriting capability (unless one use ofmipd/new-inject, which is 'separate' package). Hei .. these days, only few people could recognize this kind of problem better then you :-) Regards, -flash -- __ Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: failure notice ??
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 11:49:55PM +0700, Syafril Hermansyah wrote: Nope, while autoforward Mdaemon will keep return-path header intact. Next Monday, I can ask Marck to check his Mdaemon logs. Well, not to mention the fact that return-path header has already changed by MDaemon. As I could remember, we have met this kind of problem, right? :-) Regards, -flash -- __ Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: failure notice ??
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 12:56:16AM +, Syafril Hermansyah wrote: At that time we have no Mdaemon logs, nor Qmail logs, and netzero involved. This case we will have Mdaemon logs, hope this will clarify more better. Indeed. But, hei .. I was never mention about namezero :-) That one didn't come to mine while talking about 'this' problem. I think, it's all about old version of MDaemon. Regards, Flash -- __ Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
