I see on the URCM webpage that the address for contacting the
moderators is given as urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk.

I understand that this address will not work from some popular email
systems  - and that there are two alternative addresses which are
supposed to work irrespective of originating email system.


Could I suggest/request that these alternative addresses are provided
on the URCM web pages please.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

In  jms  writes:

>I see on the URCM webpage that the address for contacting the
>moderators is given as urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk.

>I understand that this address will not work from some popular email
>systems  - and that there are two alternative addresses which are
>supposed to work irrespective of originating email system.


>Could I suggest/request that these alternative addresses are provided
>on the URCM web pages please.

Can you provide actual evidence that the advertised addresses are not
working from some particular email system?

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

"Charles Lindsey"  wrote in
news:KrLyJI.5tE@clerew.man.ac.uk: 

> In  jms
>  writes: 
> 
>>I see on the URCM webpage that the address for contacting the
>>moderators is given as urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk.
> 
>>I understand that this address will not work from some popular
>>email systems  - and that there are two alternative addresses
>>which are supposed to work irrespective of originating email
>>system. 
> 
> 
>>Could I suggest/request that these alternative addresses are
>>provided on the URCM web pages please.
> 
> Can you provide actual evidence that the advertised addresses are
> not working from some particular email system?
> 

The web page in question gives an alternative address "in case of 
difficulty" that, ISTR, was said to be liberal in its acceptance rules.

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:54:54 GMT, "Charles Lindsey"
 wrote:

>In  jms  writes:
>
>>I see on the URCM webpage that the address for contacting the
>>moderators is given as urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk.
>
>>I understand that this address will not work from some popular email
>>systems  - and that there are two alternative addresses which are
>>supposed to work irrespective of originating email system.
>
>
>>Could I suggest/request that these alternative addresses are provided
>>on the URCM web pages please.
>
>Can you provide actual evidence that the advertised addresses are not
>working from some particular email system?


I have tried the published email address - it does not work  for me.

I am not saying (now) that  the addresses which you gave are not
working - I am saying  that the broken address should *not* be
published on the moderation page - and the addresses which work should
be the ones published.  Or at least it should be stated that there are
known problems with the broken address.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

In message , jms 
 writes
>On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:54:54 GMT, "Charles Lindsey"
> wrote:
>
>>In  jms 
>> writes:
>>
>>>I see on the URCM webpage that the address for contacting the
>>>moderators is given as urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk.
>>
>>>I understand that this address will not work from some popular email
>>>systems  - and that there are two alternative addresses which are
>>>supposed to work irrespective of originating email system.
>>
>>
>>>Could I suggest/request that these alternative addresses are provided
>>>on the URCM web pages please.
>>
>>Can you provide actual evidence that the advertised addresses are not
>>working from some particular email system?
>
>
>I have tried the published email address - it does not work  for me.
>
>I am not saying (now) that  the addresses which you gave are not
>working - I am saying  that the broken address should *not* be
>published on the moderation page - and the addresses which work should
>be the ones published.  Or at least it should be stated that there are
>known problems with the broken address.
>

Surely though in this case it is the email client (IIRC it is Hotmail we 
are referring too) that is broken?
-- 
Chris French

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:49:21 +0100, Chris French
 wrote:

>In message , jms 
> writes
>>On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:54:54 GMT, "Charles Lindsey"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In  jms 
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>>I see on the URCM webpage that the address for contacting the
>>>>moderators is given as urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk.
>>>
>>>>I understand that this address will not work from some popular email
>>>>systems  - and that there are two alternative addresses which are
>>>>supposed to work irrespective of originating email system.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Could I suggest/request that these alternative addresses are provided
>>>>on the URCM web pages please.
>>>
>>>Can you provide actual evidence that the advertised addresses are not
>>>working from some particular email system?
>>
>>
>>I have tried the published email address - it does not work  for me.
>>
>>I am not saying (now) that  the addresses which you gave are not
>>working - I am saying  that the broken address should *not* be
>>published on the moderation page - and the addresses which work should
>>be the ones published.  Or at least it should be stated that there are
>>known problems with the broken address.
>>
>
>Surely though in this case it is the email client (IIRC it is Hotmail we 
>are referring too) that is broken?


That is what Jackson says.

However you look at  it - he has intentionally ensured that his system
does not work with hotmail.

It is most odd he knows what causes the problem but is just unwilling
to correct it.

However - it is no real surprise if he you witnessed his arrogance in
the whole build up to the creation of the group.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:49:21  
uk.net.news.moderation Chris French 

>Surely though in this case it is the email client (IIRC it is Hotmail 
>we are referring too) that is broken?

When did hotmail last post to a newsgroup?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:49:21 +0100, Chris French put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In message , jms 
> writes
>>
>>I am not saying (now) that  the addresses which you gave are not
>>working - I am saying  that the broken address should *not* be
>>published on the moderation page - and the addresses which work should
>>be the ones published.  Or at least it should be stated that there are
>>known problems with the broken address.
>>
>
>Surely though in this case it is the email client (IIRC it is Hotmail we 
>are referring too) that is broken?

Not in this case, no. The problem is that Hotmail has blocked the
server in question from sending mail to Hotmail addresses because it
has triggered Hotmail's anti-spam system, and in return the server is
refusing to accept messages from Hotmail's servers. 

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:10:49 +0100, jms put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>
>I see on the URCM webpage that the address for contacting the
>moderators is given as urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk.
>
>I understand that this address will not work from some popular email
>systems  - and that there are two alternative addresses which are
>supposed to work irrespective of originating email system.
>
>
>Could I suggest/request that these alternative addresses are provided
>on the URCM web pages please.

The only official urcm web page is the one at
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycling.moderated.html

This gives an address with which to contact the moderators, which will
work from Hotmail addresses.

The moderators of any newsgroup are, of course, entirely at liberty to
put up their own website related to the group, and as a general rule
this is encouraged - particularly if it contains moderation guidelines
which goe beyond the formal charter of the group and/or information
about moderation decisions. However, there is no onus on the
moderators to do so if they do not wish to do so, and, irrespective of
what they choose to do (or not do) about providing additional
information, the only canonical source of information about the group
is that which is posted to uk.net.news.announce and mirrored on
http://www.usenet.org.uk.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:44:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:10:49 +0100, jms put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>
>>
>>I see on the URCM webpage that the address for contacting the
>>moderators is given as urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk.
>>
>>I understand that this address will not work from some popular email
>>systems  - and that there are two alternative addresses which are
>>supposed to work irrespective of originating email system.
>>
>>
>>Could I suggest/request that these alternative addresses are provided
>>on the URCM web pages please.
>
>The only official urcm web page is the one at
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycling.moderated.html
>
>This gives an address with which to contact the moderators, which will
>work from Hotmail addresses.
>
>The moderators of any newsgroup are, of course, entirely at liberty to
>put up their own website related to the group, and as a general rule
>this is encouraged - particularly if it contains moderation guidelines
>which goe beyond the formal charter of the group and/or information
>about moderation decisions. However, there is no onus on the
>moderators to do so if they do not wish to do so, and, irrespective of
>what they choose to do (or not do) about providing additional
>information, the only canonical source of information about the group
>is that which is posted to uk.net.news.announce and mirrored on
>http://www.usenet.org.uk.
>
>Mark


Thank you.

I guess that in the spirit of fairness and balance, Mr Jackson will be
making the official email address available on his personal URCM
website and pointing out the difficulties of the address which he
recommends.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

In message , Wm... 
 writes
>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:49:21  
>uk.net.news.moderation Chris French 
>
>>Surely though in this case it is the email client (IIRC it is Hotmail 
>>we are referring too) that is broken?
>
>When did hotmail last post to a newsgroup?
>

We are talking about posting to a newsgroup.

JMS was referring to the address(s) for contacting the moderators via 
email.
-- 
Chris French

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:57:59 +0100, jms wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:49:21 +0100, Chris French
>  wrote:
> 
>>Surely though in this case it is the email client (IIRC it is Hotmail we
>>are referring too) that is broken?
> 
> That is what Jackson says.
> 
> However you look at  it - he has intentionally ensured that his system
> does not work with hotmail.
> 
> It is most odd he knows what causes the problem but is just unwilling to
> correct it.

If Hotmail does not conform to published international standards, I fail 
to see why that is anyone else's problem. If your service provider can't 
(or won't) use published standards and deliver your mail in the standard 
way, choose a different service provider.

-- 
stillyet@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/

	Hobbit ringleader gives Sauron One in the Eye.

In message <H$ht6XG6um2KNAgS@gauva.familyfrench.co.uk>, Chris French 
 writes
>We are talking about posting to a newsgroup.
>
'aren't' of course
-- 
Chris French

On Oct 17, 11:22 pm, jms  wrote:
> I guess that in the spirit of fairness and balance, Mr Jackson will be
> making the official email address available on his personal URCM
> website and pointing out the difficulties of the address which he
> recommends.

I guess in the spirit of fairness and balance [(c) Faux News] you will
also insist that he chop down the tallest tree in the forest with a
herring.
--
Guy

On 18 Oct 2009 10:08:50 GMT, Simon Brooke
<stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:57:59 +0100, jms wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:49:21 +0100, Chris French
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>Surely though in this case it is the email client (IIRC it is Hotmail we
>>>are referring too) that is broken?
>> 
>> That is what Jackson says.
>> 
>> However you look at  it - he has intentionally ensured that his system
>> does not work with hotmail.
>> 
>> It is most odd he knows what causes the problem but is just unwilling to
>> correct it.
>
>If Hotmail does not conform to published international standards, I fail 
>to see why that is anyone else's problem. If your service provider can't 
>(or won't) use published standards and deliver your mail in the standard 
>way, choose a different service provider.


Ho, ho, ho - yes of course it is because  of Hotmail - nothing to do
with Jackson's arrogance.

I have never had any problems with rejection of Hotmail messages from
any other system I have interfaced with anywhere in the world.

Jackson has taken it upon himself as a crusade against Microsoft (a
word he cannot bring himself to use - preferring Micro$oft - which in
itself says quite  a lot) - he knows what the problem is - he
deliberately continues to ensure that chiark will not work.

He is pig-headed and arrogant - but then he is not alone:

--            
I believe that if I am driving or cycling there is no chance 
of a child running out in front of me and causing an  accident.
Simon Brooke.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:52:51 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Oct 17, 11:22 pm, jms  wrote:
>> I guess that in the spirit of fairness and balance, Mr Jackson will be
>> making the official email address available on his personal URCM
>> website and pointing out the difficulties of the address which he
>> recommends.
>
>I guess in the spirit of fairness and balance [(c) Faux News] you will
>also insist that he chop down the tallest tree in the forest with a
>herring.


Ho, ho, ho ......


No  - on second thoughts it wasn't even funny - indeed it was quite
pathetic.

Jackson goes to the trouble of putting together his own URCM web page.

On it, he then produces his own personalised version of the Charter -
and he goes to the trouble of saying that : 

This is a copy of the official charter published at
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycling.moderated.html#uk.rec.cycling.moderated
When of course it isn't a copy at all.

Still, accuracy and honesty have never been bed-fellows of Mr Jackson.

On that web page he doesn't provide the official address for
contacting the moderators.

He gives an email address - which he knows will not work for Hotmail
or Live addresses because he is arrogant and pig-headed.

An honest person (you won't understand this bit Chapman)  - would have
said something like the moderators can be contacted on the official
moderators' email address at **************.    Alternatively they can
be contacted at <the faulty email addresses> - please note that these
addresses do not work for Hotmail and Live Accounts.

(He need not even have put "Because I am an arrogant bastard")

Much too honest and open.

This is however, uk.rec.cycling.moderated we are talking about.

--    
"It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and
every moderation decision is unexplained and final. "
(Simon Brooke moderator)

On 2009-10-18, Simon Brooke wrote:

> If Hotmail does not conform to published international standards, I fail 
> to see why that is anyone else's problem. If your service provider can't 
> (or won't) use published standards and deliver your mail in the standard 
> way, choose a different service provider.

Fair enough.

On 18 Oct 2009 10:08:50 GMT, Simon Brooke put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:57:59 +0100, jms wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:49:21 +0100, Chris French
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>Surely though in this case it is the email client (IIRC it is Hotmail we
>>>are referring too) that is broken?
>> 
>> That is what Jackson says.
>> 
>> However you look at  it - he has intentionally ensured that his system
>> does not work with hotmail.
>> 
>> It is most odd he knows what causes the problem but is just unwilling to
>> correct it.
>
>If Hotmail does not conform to published international standards, I fail 
>to see why that is anyone else's problem. If your service provider can't 
>(or won't) use published standards and deliver your mail in the standard 
>way, choose a different service provider.

Hotmail is perfectly standards-compliant in this respect. There are
some issues with Hotmail as far as message composition is concerned,
but these are to do with the web-based UI rather than the underlying
mail handling. From an SMTP point of view, Hotmail's servers behave
correctly.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

jms wrote:

8<... absolute rubbish

Are you still here, you mad old witch? Isn't it time somebody sectioned 
you?

Tim


-- 
My hearts numbered beat            |       Greetings from Birmingham, UK
Still echoes in this empty room    |All about me: www.nervouscyclist.org
Fear wells in me, but nothing seems|      Is your ISP pimping your data?
Enough to defend      Dave Matthews|                  www.badphorm.co.uk

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:52:10 +0100, Adam Funk 
wrote:

>On 2009-10-18, Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> If Hotmail does not conform to published international standards, I fail 
>> to see why that is anyone else's problem. If your service provider can't 
>> (or won't) use published standards and deliver your mail in the standard 
>> way, choose a different service provider.
>
>Fair enough.


Yes it's odd that Jackson's system has a problem with this "Microsoft
bug" - and yet uk.legal.moderated, the voting process recently used
for URCM, and the official addresses for usenet.org.uk  all work OK.

Perhaps they are run by professionals who have no axe to grind.
-- 
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:  Pedal Cyclists : 527    Pedestrians 371
All casualties:  Pedal Cyclists : 3494    Pedestrians : 1631

Mark Goodge  wrote in
news:92rmd5dn20c62am84s4d26m14bm4gni1np@news.markshouse.net: 

> On 18 Oct 2009 10:08:50 GMT, Simon Brooke put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
> 
>>On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:57:59 +0100, jms wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:49:21 +0100, Chris French
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Surely though in this case it is the email client (IIRC it is
>>>>Hotmail we are referring too) that is broken?
>>> 
>>> That is what Jackson says.
>>> 
>>> However you look at  it - he has intentionally ensured that his
>>> system does not work with hotmail.
>>> 
>>> It is most odd he knows what causes the problem but is just
>>> unwilling to correct it.
>>
>>If Hotmail does not conform to published international standards,
>>I fail to see why that is anyone else's problem. If your service
>>provider can't (or won't) use published standards and deliver your
>>mail in the standard way, choose a different service provider.
> 
> Hotmail is perfectly standards-compliant in this respect. There
> are some issues with Hotmail as far as message composition is
> concerned, but these are to do with the web-based UI rather than
> the underlying mail handling. From an SMTP point of view,
> Hotmail's servers behave correctly.
> 
> Mark

I would have said the reverse was true.  It seems to be entirely 
possible to get Hotmail to send plain text messages. Failure to do 
so when appropriate is a user error. They do have a habit of 
silently dropping emails from servers which are not signed up to the 
proprietary email security system that Microsoft promotes.  Silently 
dropping accepted messages is not standards compliant.  However, 
according to someone, chiark's problem with Hotmail is that Hotmail 
won't accept an SMPT connection when an attempt to do this is used 
as verification of the sending server, and, if so, this is a 
different problem with Hotmail - I am not sure whether it is 
standards compliant to refuse SMTP connections from servers you 
don't like the look of, but it certainly seems a good reason not to 
accept messages from Hotmail.

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:36:31 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>Mark Goodge  wrote in
>news:92rmd5dn20c62am84s4d26m14bm4gni1np@news.markshouse.net: 
>
>> On 18 Oct 2009 10:08:50 GMT, Simon Brooke put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>> 
>>>On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:57:59 +0100, jms wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:49:21 +0100, Chris French
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>Surely though in this case it is the email client (IIRC it is
>>>>>Hotmail we are referring too) that is broken?
>>>> 
>>>> That is what Jackson says.
>>>> 
>>>> However you look at  it - he has intentionally ensured that his
>>>> system does not work with hotmail.
>>>> 
>>>> It is most odd he knows what causes the problem but is just
>>>> unwilling to correct it.
>>>
>>>If Hotmail does not conform to published international standards,
>>>I fail to see why that is anyone else's problem. If your service
>>>provider can't (or won't) use published standards and deliver your
>>>mail in the standard way, choose a different service provider.
>> 
>> Hotmail is perfectly standards-compliant in this respect. There
>> are some issues with Hotmail as far as message composition is
>> concerned, but these are to do with the web-based UI rather than
>> the underlying mail handling. From an SMTP point of view,
>> Hotmail's servers behave correctly.
>> 
>> Mark
>
>I would have said the reverse was true.  It seems to be entirely 
>possible to get Hotmail to send plain text messages. Failure to do 
>so when appropriate is a user error. They do have a habit of 
>silently dropping emails from servers which are not signed up to the 
>proprietary email security system that Microsoft promotes.  Silently 
>dropping accepted messages is not standards compliant.  However, 
>according to someone, chiark's problem with Hotmail is that Hotmail 
>won't accept an SMPT connection when an attempt to do this is used 
>as verification of the sending server, and, if so, this is a 
>different problem with Hotmail - I am not sure whether it is 
>standards compliant to refuse SMTP connections from servers you 
>don't like the look of, but it certainly seems a good reason not to 
>accept messages from Hotmail.


Are there many (any) other systems which you know of, which won't
accept messages from Hotmail in this fashion?

I use hotmail regularly - I have sent emails to very, very many
organisations :  Government, Businesses, IT Service Companies,
Financial Intuitions,  (within the UK and abroad) and on, and on, and
on.

I have never, ever had an email rejected in this fashion elsewhere.

I do wonder if someone is just being bloody minded and arrogant.





-- 
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:  Pedal Cyclists : 527    Pedestrians 371
All casualties:  Pedal Cyclists : 3494    Pedestrians : 1631

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:52:51 -0700, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Oct 17, 11:22 pm, jms  wrote:
>> I guess that in the spirit of fairness and balance, Mr Jackson will be
>> making the official email address available on his personal URCM
>> website and pointing out the difficulties of the address which he
>> recommends.
> 
> I guess in the spirit of fairness and balance [(c) Faux News] you will
> also insist that he chop down the tallest tree in the forest with a
> herring.

Guy, shut the fuck up and stop making trouble.

Is that sufficiently clear for you?

-- 
stillyet@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/

	'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

On Oct 18, 11:52 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:
> On Oct 17, 11:22 pm, jms  wrote:

[snip]

Thanks for reposting that, I wouldn't have seen it otherwise as my
killfile trapped it.

James

wrote in message 
news:26c9a922-c905-400a-9b9b-38f5b166877b@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 18, 11:52 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:
> On Oct 17, 11:22 pm, jms  wrote:

[snip]

Thanks for reposting that, I wouldn't have seen it otherwise as my
killfile trapped it.

James
------
You will have to excuse Guy Chapman, he has an unhealthy obsession with 
Judith.

In  jms  writes:

>On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:54:54 GMT, "Charles Lindsey"
> wrote:

>>Can you provide actual evidence that the advertised addresses are not
>>working from some particular email system?


>I have tried the published email address - it does not work  for me.

Was that the submission address or the contact (-request) address.

Will you please now end an email from your Hotmail Account to the contact
address (i.e. uk-rec-cycling-moderation-request@usenet.org.uk), with CC to
me, requesting that they do a Reply-All (so I get to see the reply)
acknowledging that they received it.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

On Oct 19, 3:31 pm, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> You will have to excuse Guy Chapman, he has an unhealthy obsession with
> Judith.

Funny man.
--
Guy

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:55:41 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Oct 19, 3:31 pm, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You will have to excuse Guy Chapman, he has an unhealthy obsession with
>> Judith.
>
>Funny man.


He is funny I agree - but he was spot on here wasn't he?

You have demonstrated yet again in this very post that you *cannot*
let things go - you must always have the last word in every thread.

Well  here it is -  just for you :

Fuckwit.
--          

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:36:31 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Mark Goodge  wrote in
>news:92rmd5dn20c62am84s4d26m14bm4gni1np@news.markshouse.net: 
>> 
>> Hotmail is perfectly standards-compliant in this respect. There
>> are some issues with Hotmail as far as message composition is
>> concerned, but these are to do with the web-based UI rather than
>> the underlying mail handling. From an SMTP point of view,
>> Hotmail's servers behave correctly.
>
>I would have said the reverse was true.  It seems to be entirely 
>possible to get Hotmail to send plain text messages. Failure to do 
>so when appropriate is a user error. 

It's not the plain-textiness or otherwise which is the issue. The
Hotmail web system has a bug which breaks the References headers in
certain circumstances. This is a known problem, and mostly affects
mailing lists. But it is a bug in the composition system, not the SMTP
system.

>They do have a habit of 
>silently dropping emails from servers which are not signed up to the 
>proprietary email security system that Microsoft promotes.  Silently 
>dropping accepted messages is not standards compliant.

Hotmail silently discards messages from servers which it has
determined are a major source of spam. That's not entirely compliant,
but most anti-spam systems aren't either - the RFDs were writen before
spam became the issue it is today.

>  However, 
>according to someone, chiark's problem with Hotmail is that Hotmail 
>won't accept an SMPT connection when an attempt to do this is used 
>as verification of the sending server, and, if so, this is a 
>different problem with Hotmail

Not quite. Hotmail will accept verification probes, in small
quantities, but if it gets large numbers to invalid addresses from any
particular server then that will trigger its anti-spam filters (since
no legitimate system will ever be sending to those addreses) and
blacklist the server in question. This appears to be what's happen to
chiark.

I have heard it rumoured (I have no idea how accurate this is, but it
sounds plausible) that Hotmail maintains a list of honeypot addresses
that are known to always be invalid, and if it gets a message from any
server with an envelope recipient of one of those addresses then it
will blacklist that server. Given that a verification probe must, of
necessity, send an SMTP request with the envelope recipient of the
address being probed, this means that should one of those addresses be
used as the sender address in spam then it will also cause the
verifying server to be blacklisted when it attempts to verify the
address at Hotmail.

> - I am not sure whether it is 
>standards compliant to refuse SMTP connections from servers you 
>don't like the look of, but it certainly seems a good reason not to 
>accept messages from Hotmail.

I disagree; using sender verification in this way is itself not
compliant with standards, is widely considered harmful as a form of
backscatter and is known to cause servers using it to become
blacklisted as if they themselves were the source of the spam.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Mark Goodge  wrote in
news:olfpd59ivcpi9v1lq3v96gcrans5n4qnml@news.markshouse.net: 

> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:36:31 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity put
> finger to keyboard and typed:
> 
>>Mark Goodge  wrote in
>>news:92rmd5dn20c62am84s4d26m14bm4gni1np@news.markshouse.net: 
>>> 
>>> Hotmail is perfectly standards-compliant in this respect. There
>>> are some issues with Hotmail as far as message composition is
>>> concerned, but these are to do with the web-based UI rather than
>>> the underlying mail handling. From an SMTP point of view,
>>> Hotmail's servers behave correctly.
>>
>>I would have said the reverse was true.  It seems to be entirely 
>>possible to get Hotmail to send plain text messages. Failure to do
>>so when appropriate is a user error. 
> 
> It's not the plain-textiness or otherwise which is the issue. The
> Hotmail web system has a bug which breaks the References headers
> in certain circumstances. This is a known problem, and mostly
> affects mailing lists. But it is a bug in the composition system,
> not the SMTP system.
> 
>>They do have a habit of 
>>silently dropping emails from servers which are not signed up to
>>the proprietary email security system that Microsoft promotes. 
>>Silently dropping accepted messages is not standards compliant.
> 
> Hotmail silently discards messages from servers which it has
> determined are a major source of spam. That's not entirely
> compliant, but most anti-spam systems aren't either - the RFDs
> were writen before spam became the issue it is today.

Then why did it start silently discarding emails from my server 
which was not listed anywhere AFAIK and had sent hotmail about 100 
messages over five years, none of which were spam?  When I 
complained they invited me to join some email server accreditation 
system for a 5 figure sum.


-- 
Percy Picacity

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:13:38 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Mark Goodge  wrote in
>news:olfpd59ivcpi9v1lq3v96gcrans5n4qnml@news.markshouse.net: 
>> 
>> Hotmail silently discards messages from servers which it has
>> determined are a major source of spam. That's not entirely
>> compliant, but most anti-spam systems aren't either - the RFDs
>> were writen before spam became the issue it is today.
>
>Then why did it start silently discarding emails from my server 
>which was not listed anywhere AFAIK and had sent hotmail about 100 
>messages over five years, none of which were spam?  When I 
>complained they invited me to join some email server accreditation 
>system for a 5 figure sum.

I don't know. I've never had any problems, so I can't comment from
experience. I'm not saying their anti-spam systems are perfect, just
that they're no worse than anyone else's.

If you really want to deal with clueless mail administrators, try
sending mail to BT/Yahoo.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:34:33 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
 wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:13:41 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
>>  Simon Brooke wrote:
>> > On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:52:51 -0700, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> > 
>> >> I guess in the spirit of fairness and balance [(c) Faux News] you will
>> >> also insist that he chop down the tallest tree in the forest with a
>> >> herring.
>> > 
>> > Guy, shut the fuck up and stop making trouble.
>> > Is that sufficiently clear for you?
>> 
>>  Is Guy making trouble or just pointing out that Mr Jackson has not 
>>  raised UCRM as a personal issue purely to spite one particular 
>>  poster by using a personal server with a personal set-up and config 
>>  just out of spite.
>
>He's making trouble.
>
>He likes to wallow in shit, then raise an almighty protest that he's 
>covered in shit.  It's terrible that all the shit sticks to him, when 
>all he does is lie down in it, roll around in it, throw it up in the 
>air and give it a good stir whenever an opportunity arises.
>
>He does it all with an apparent cast-iron faith in his hard-done-by 
>innocence.  Apparently, if you throw shit up in the air then stand 
>around looking aggrieved, it's someone else's fault if it lands on 
>you.
>
>He'd feel picked on if he got stung after giving a wasps nest a good 
>prodding with a pointy stick.  He'd then go and find another wasps 
>nest to prod just to prove how blameless he is.
>
>I can only assume there's something wrong with him - some fundamental 
>inability to recognise cause and effect, maybe.  Some disjoint where 
>he thinks that being annoying proves he is important.  It's almost 
>indistinguishable from troll behaviour, but altogether more strange 
>mainly because it's his own doorstep he craps on, his own pool his 
>pisses in (proudly and publicly, before complaining about the turd 
>that's floating in the deep end).
>
>regards,,   Ian SMith


Why thank you Mr Smith - I could not have expressed it better myself.

But of course if I had tried  - I would have been trolling.

On 2009-10-19, Mark Goodge  wrote:
> Hotmail silently discards messages from servers which it has
> determined are a major source of spam. That's not entirely compliant,
> but most anti-spam systems aren't either - the RFDs were writen before
> spam became the issue it is today.

I'd say you're *massively* understating the problem there.
Silently discarding mail is one of the worst possible crimes a mail
server can commit. In some ways I would say it is even worse than
being an open relay.

Server silently discarding mail is the reason that mail is not
reliable, when it should be. This sort of behaviour destroys the
usefulness of email.

On Oct 20, 1:55 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:
> On Oct 19, 3:31 pm, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > You will have to excuse Guy Chapman, he has an unhealthy obsession with
> > Judith.
>
> Funny man.

No need to go that far, a mere humble apology and undertaking not to
repeat the offence would have sufficed.

James

In  "Charles Lindsey"  writes:

>In  jms  writes:


>>I have tried the published email address - it does not work  for me.

>Was that the submission address or the contact (-request) address.

>Will you please now end an email from your Hotmail Account to the contact
>address (i.e. uk-rec-cycling-moderation-request@usenet.org.uk), with CC to
>me, requesting that they do a Reply-All (so I get to see the reply)
>acknowledging that they received it.

And now you have done that, the problem (or rather non-problem) is clear.

The contact address for the moderators is
    uk.rec.cycling.moderated-request@usenet.org.uk

You have been sending messages to
    uk.rec.cycling.moderation-request@usenet.org.uk

So naturally, they have been bouncing.

An easy mistake (you will even see it in my quotation above), but a
mistake nevertheless.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:14:51 GMT, "Charles Lindsey"
 wrote:

>In  "Charles Lindsey"  writes:
>
>>In  jms  writes:
>
>
>>>I have tried the published email address - it does not work  for me.
>
>>Was that the submission address or the contact (-request) address.
>
>>Will you please now end an email from your Hotmail Account to the contact
>>address (i.e. uk-rec-cycling-moderation-request@usenet.org.uk), with CC to
>>me, requesting that they do a Reply-All (so I get to see the reply)
>>acknowledging that they received it.
>
>And now you have done that, the problem (or rather non-problem) is clear.
>
>The contact address for the moderators is
>    uk.rec.cycling.moderated-request@usenet.org.uk
>
>You have been sending messages to
>    uk.rec.cycling.moderation-request@usenet.org.uk
>
>So naturally, they have been bouncing.
>
>An easy mistake (you will even see it in my quotation above), but a
>mistake nevertheless.


Indeed - it is an easy mistake to make - perhaps  the confusion is
caused by the addresses  being given yet differently again in the
Charter:
 

Send mail related to the moderation of the group to

    uk-rec-cycling-moderated-request (at) usenet.org.uk.


For avoidance of doubt - could perhaps someone test which email
address of the three actually works and then publish the address to be
used.

Perhaps  Ian Jackson could say which he used when he tested the
system?

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:14:51 GMT, Charles Lindsey put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In  "Charles Lindsey"  writes:
>
>>In  jms  writes:
>
>
>>>I have tried the published email address - it does not work  for me.
>
>>Was that the submission address or the contact (-request) address.
>
>>Will you please now end an email from your Hotmail Account to the contact
>>address (i.e. uk-rec-cycling-moderation-request@usenet.org.uk), with CC to
>>me, requesting that they do a Reply-All (so I get to see the reply)
>>acknowledging that they received it.
>
>And now you have done that, the problem (or rather non-problem) is clear.
>
>The contact address for the moderators is
>    uk.rec.cycling.moderated-request@usenet.org.uk
>
>You have been sending messages to
>    uk.rec.cycling.moderation-request@usenet.org.uk
>
>So naturally, they have been bouncing.
>
>An easy mistake (you will even see it in my quotation above), but a
>mistake nevertheless.

And even that address is wrong. It should be

  uk-rec-cycling-moderated-request@usenet.org.uk

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

In  Judith M Smith  writes:

>On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:14:51 GMT, "Charles Lindsey"
> wrote:

>>In  "Charles Lindsey"  writes:
>>
>>>In  jms  writes:
>>
>>
>>>>I have tried the published email address - it does not work  for me.
>>
>>>Was that the submission address or the contact (-request) address.
>>
>>>Will you please now end an email from your Hotmail Account to the contact
>>>address (i.e. uk-rec-cycling-moderation-request@usenet.org.uk), with CC to
>>>me, requesting that they do a Reply-All (so I get to see the reply)
>>>acknowledging that they received it.
>>
>>And now you have done that, the problem (or rather non-problem) is clear.
>>
>>The contact address for the moderators is
>>    uk.rec.cycling.moderated-request@usenet.org.uk

Oops! I omitted the hyphens there.


>Indeed - it is an easy mistake to make - perhaps  the confusion is
>caused by the addresses  being given yet differently again in the
>Charter:
> 

>Send mail related to the moderation of the group to

>    uk-rec-cycling-moderated-request (at) usenet.org.uk.

Yes, that is correct. Please repeat your experiment using it.

>Perhaps  Ian Jackson could say which he used when he tested the
>system?

He (or rather David) used that one, and reported that it worked.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5