Mark Sapiro writes: > 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. I agree with your conclusion, though. Systematically banging on a closed door is unlikely to get sympathy, no matter how wrongheaded the closed-door policy is. I would consider it a violation of the rights of the system's owner (eg, a theft of service). Of course the owner has obligations to his customers, but a mailing list has no standing to enforce them. That's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I bet many of these systems' maintainers feel just about that way. Steve ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list [email protected] 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
