You're right, it'll probably never happen. I do find when I am upfront
and honest with our customers, they enjoy it and act far less irritated
than giving them what the company would prefer and that is 'we're down,
sorry, it'll be down for xx amount of time..'
Personally, if my ISP had issu
Is anyone else noticing new AOL lameness that when you send an e-mail
to an AOL user and if the e-mail has a URL in it but the reverse
lookup of that url doesn't come back to that domain name that AOL's
postmaster rejects it and gives you this URL:
http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554hvuip.h
On Oct 2, 2006, at 10:35 AM, Mike Lyon wrote:
Is anyone else noticing new AOL lameness that when you send an e-mail
to an AOL user and if the e-mail has a URL in it but the reverse
lookup of that url doesn't come back to that domain name that AOL's
postmaster rejects it and gives you this URL
OK, I should clarify this. The description that is on that link I put
in my original e-mail doesn't actually describe what is happening, but
that is the error they spit back at me.
What really is happening is that the url that is in my e-mail and when
you reolve it to an IP, if you do a reverse
Anybody more familiar with setup at AOL - is this true?
If so you're going to do disservice to the community as in practice
this will cause lots of places to go to per-ip virtual hosting and
more ip usage from hosting companies like it was 5-7 years ago when
browsers did not yet support HTTP/
Along the lines of "a picture is worth...etc.." an actual example of an
e-mail that is sent out generating that error would be very useful.
I'm guessing that, from the page at the URL provided, AOL has decided
that banning dotted quads from e-mails will cut down on the spam and
phishing scam
On 10/2/06, Matt Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I'm noticing this too. Very lame indeed. Doing a quick Google
> on it in the Groups it seems that it was a feature that was enabled
> earlier this year. My guess is they turned it off, then turned it
Drew the attention of a friend a
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:35:55 PDT, Mike Lyon said:
>
> Is anyone else noticing new AOL lameness that when you send an e-mail
> to an AOL user and if the e-mail has a URL in it but the reverse
> lookup of that url doesn't come back to that domain name that AOL's
> postmaster rejects it and gives you
On Oct 2, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Mike Lyon wrote:
OK, I should clarify this. The description that is on that link I put
in my original e-mail doesn't actually describe what is happening, but
that is the error they spit back at me.
What really is happening is that the url that is in my e-mail and
So, to clarify:
The official policy has nothing to do
with reverse DNS lookups of URLs.
AOL's policy prohibits linking of URLs
using IP addresses.
The system they used to enforce the
policy was/is quirky, as can bee seen here.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/02/2006 02:23:56
PM:
>
> On 10/2/06
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:53:56PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
...
> Drew the attention of a friend at AOL to this and got a reply quoted
> below - this was apparently an issue at AOL's end. Thanks to AOL for
> quickly acting to fix this.
>
> I've been asked by my friend to post this bel
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:53:56PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> ...
> > Drew the attention of a friend at AOL to this and got a reply quoted
> > below - this was apparently an issue at AOL's end. Thanks to AOL for
> > quickly acting to fix
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 18:30 -0400, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
> All, this seems seriously NON-lame to me. Of course, testing and fixing
> the bug before it was put out there would have been less so.
Testing something like this would be difficult without duplicating
everyone's email into a developme
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Rick Kunkel wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:53:56PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > ...
> > > Drew the attention of a friend at AOL to this and got a reply quoted
> > > below - this was apparently an issue at A
on Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 06:45:46PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Rick Kunkel wrote:
> > I had users that appeared to be getting their email blocked seemingly
> > because in their sigs, they write their phone number that stupid
> > IP-Address-Wannabe method, like:
> >
> > 20
On 2 Oct 2006, at 23:39, Rick Kunkel wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:53:56PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
...
Drew the attention of a friend at AOL to this and got a reply quoted
below - this was apparently an issue at AOL's end. Than
Judicious clipping; hope I kept the right attributions...
Ian Mason wrote:
On 2 Oct 2006, at 23:39, Rick Kunkel wrote:
I had users that appeared to be getting their email blocked seemingly
because in their sigs, they write their phone number that stupid
IP-Address-Wannabe method, like:
206
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Steve Atkins wrote:
> That seems pretty unlikely (as it would break every email mentioning a
> virtual hosted website), and the URL you link to says nothing of
> the sort (it says "Don't use dotted-quads in URLs unless you want to
> look like Atriks, doofu
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Rick Kunkel wrote:
> I had users that appeared to be getting their email blocked seemingly
> because in their sigs, they write their phone number that stupid
> IP-Address-Wannabe method, like:
> 206.555.1212
> As an aside, is this something that's the
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
>
> Judicious clipping; hope I kept the right attributions...
>
> Ian Mason wrote:
>
>> On 2 Oct 2006, at 23:39, Rick Kunkel wrote:
>
>>> I had users that appeared to be getting their email blocked seemingly
>>> because in their sigs, they write their phone number that s
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> It is indeed happening, and appears to have started last night.
Dang, I really need to train myself to read _all_ of my email before
replying to _any_ of it.
-Bill
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
>
> Judicious clipping; hope I kept the right attributions...
>
> Ian Mason wrote:
>
> > On 2 Oct 2006, at 23:39, Rick Kunkel wrote:
>
> >> I had users that appeared to be getting their email blocked seemingly
> >> because in their sigs, they write the
22 matches
Mail list logo
