Re: [meteorite-list] DMARC Clarification
This email still ended up in my yahoo spam folder! Paul Kurimsky Sent from my iPhone kd...@flash.net > On Mar 18, 2024, at 11:52 AM, Paul Harris via Meteorite-list > wrote: > > Hello Everyone, > > I should clarify something about DMARC. According to Yahoo and Google, > domains sending less than 5000 emails per day are not required to have DMARC. > > After the February deadline we started having email delivery issues to our > customers. We are nowhere near the 5000 daily limit. After adding the DMARC > requirements we no longer had any email delivery issues. > > Thank you, > > Paul > > > > > > > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] DMARC Clarification
and thanks for that helpful Email Health Check site Paul. Finbarr. On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 6:52 PM Paul Harris via Meteorite-list < meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I should clarify something about DMARC. According to Yahoo and Google, > domains sending less than 5000 emails per day are not required to have > DMARC. > > After the February deadline we started having email delivery issues to > our customers. We are nowhere near the 5000 daily limit. After adding > the DMARC requirements we no longer had any email delivery issues. > > Thank you, > > Paul > > > > > > > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] The March Issue of Meteorite Times is now up.
Thank you Paul, Finbarr and all.I thought that Norton, Malwarebytes, . were just being over-protective. Oddly, nothing in the Spam box today! Anne blackimpactika.comimpact...@aol.com On Monday, March 18, 2024 at 11:05:37 AM MDT, Paul Harris wrote: Hello Everyone, Finbarr is correct. (Thank you!) It looks like you can add AOL along with Gmail and Yahoo to the list who require SPF, DKIM, and DMARC from the "sender's" mail server. I know with Gmail, some can be delivered, some go to spam, and sometimes they are not delivered at all. Anne, you can contact AOL and ask if they can whitelist "meteoritecentral.com" and "imca.cc" until Art and the IMCA get DMARC working. For Website Owners, you can check your domain at the URL below. https://mxtoolbox.com/emailhealth Under "Mail Server" check to see if you have any errors. Warnings are okay. If you have any errors listed, send an email to p...@tools.mxtoolbox.com You will receive an email back with some information but for a detailed look click the "View your full deliverability report" link. This webpage will give the information needed to provide to your web host to get your mail server setup. Anyone having any questions on this please contact me off list so we don't clog the list. Thank you, Paul On 3/18/2024 9:12 AM, Finbarr Connolly wrote: > From another source - > > 'Both Gmail and Yahoo are making some changes for deliverability to > their services starting February 1, 2024. These changes will require > that domains have certain DNS records (SPF, DKIM, and DMARC) in place > if they are used to send email.' > > Whether this has anything to do with emails ending up in spam, I do > not know, but thought I'd mention it anyway. > > Finbarr. > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 4:05 PM Anne Black via Meteorite-list > wrote: > > Thanks John L. and John K. and Paul Harris. > > For some unknown reasons all posts on the Met.List and the IMCA > mailing list are now going straight to Spam, I am watching but > there could be delays. > Sorry. > > Anne Black > IMPACTIKA.com > impact...@aol.com > > > On Sunday, March 17, 2024 at 08:56:58 PM MDT, John Lutzon via > Meteorite-list wrote: > > > Thanks once Again Guys! > And again, Mr. Kashuba's scope work amazes me. > John Lutzon > > > > On 03/16/2024 2:03 PM EDT Paul Harris via Meteorite-list > wrote: > > > > > > Hello Everyone, > > > > The March issue of Meteorite Times is now up. > > > > A huge thank you to all of our contributors who made this issue > possible! > > > > https://www.meteorite-times.com/ > > > > Enjoy! > > > > Paul and Jim > > > > __ > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] The March Issue of Meteorite Times is now up.
>From another source - 'Both Gmail and Yahoo are making some changes for deliverability to their services starting February 1, 2024. These changes will require that domains have certain DNS records (SPF, DKIM, and DMARC) in place if they are used to send email.' Whether this has anything to do with emails ending up in spam, I do not know, but thought I'd mention it anyway. Finbarr. On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 4:05 PM Anne Black via Meteorite-list < meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: > Thanks John L. and John K. and Paul Harris. > > For some unknown reasons all posts on the Met.List and the IMCA mailing > list are now going straight to Spam, I am watching but there could be > delays. > Sorry. > > Anne Black > IMPACTIKA.com > impact...@aol.com > > > On Sunday, March 17, 2024 at 08:56:58 PM MDT, John Lutzon via > Meteorite-list wrote: > > > Thanks once Again Guys! > And again, Mr. Kashuba's scope work amazes me. > John Lutzon > > > > On 03/16/2024 2:03 PM EDT Paul Harris via Meteorite-list < > meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hello Everyone, > > > > The March issue of Meteorite Times is now up. > > > > A huge thank you to all of our contributors who made this issue possible! > > > > https://www.meteorite-times.com/ > > > > Enjoy! > > > > Paul and Jim > > > > __ > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] DMARC Clarification
Hello Everyone, I should clarify something about DMARC. According to Yahoo and Google, domains sending less than 5000 emails per day are not required to have DMARC. After the February deadline we started having email delivery issues to our customers. We are nowhere near the 5000 daily limit. After adding the DMARC requirements we no longer had any email delivery issues. Thank you, Paul __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] The March Issue of Meteorite Times is now up.
Hello Everyone, Finbarr is correct. (Thank you!) It looks like you can add AOL along with Gmail and Yahoo to the list who require SPF, DKIM, and DMARC from the "sender's" mail server. I know with Gmail, some can be delivered, some go to spam, and sometimes they are not delivered at all. Anne, you can contact AOL and ask if they can whitelist "meteoritecentral.com" and "imca.cc" until Art and the IMCA get DMARC working. For Website Owners, you can check your domain at the URL below. https://mxtoolbox.com/emailhealth Under "Mail Server" check to see if you have any errors. Warnings are okay. If you have any errors listed, send an email to p...@tools.mxtoolbox.com You will receive an email back with some information but for a detailed look click the "View your full deliverability report" link. This webpage will give the information needed to provide to your web host to get your mail server setup. Anyone having any questions on this please contact me off list so we don't clog the list. Thank you, Paul On 3/18/2024 9:12 AM, Finbarr Connolly wrote: From another source - 'Both Gmail and Yahoo are making some changes for deliverability to their services starting February 1, 2024. These changes will require that domains have certain DNS records (SPF, DKIM, and DMARC) in place if they are used to send email.' Whether this has anything to do with emails ending up in spam, I do not know, but thought I'd mention it anyway. Finbarr. On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 4:05 PM Anne Black via Meteorite-list wrote: Thanks John L. and John K. and Paul Harris. For some unknown reasons all posts on the Met.List and the IMCA mailing list are now going straight to Spam, I am watching but there could be delays. Sorry. Anne Black IMPACTIKA.com impact...@aol.com On Sunday, March 17, 2024 at 08:56:58 PM MDT, John Lutzon via Meteorite-list wrote: Thanks once Again Guys! And again, Mr. Kashuba's scope work amazes me. John Lutzon > On 03/16/2024 2:03 PM EDT Paul Harris via Meteorite-list wrote: > > > Hello Everyone, > > The March issue of Meteorite Times is now up. > > A huge thank you to all of our contributors who made this issue possible! > > https://www.meteorite-times.com/ > > Enjoy! > > Paul and Jim > > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] The March Issue of Meteorite Times is now up.
Thanks John L. and John K. and Paul Harris. For some unknown reasons all posts on the Met.List and the IMCA mailing list are now going straight to Spam, I am watching but there could be delays. Sorry. Anne blackimpactika.comimpact...@aol.com On Sunday, March 17, 2024 at 08:56:58 PM MDT, John Lutzon via Meteorite-list wrote: Thanks once Again Guys! And again, Mr. Kashuba's scope work amazes me. John Lutzon > On 03/16/2024 2:03 PM EDT Paul Harris via Meteorite-list > wrote: > > > Hello Everyone, > > The March issue of Meteorite Times is now up. > > A huge thank you to all of our contributors who made this issue possible! > > https://www.meteorite-times.com/ > > Enjoy! > > Paul and Jim > > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Nice iron meteorite unclassified
Thank you for your responses on the Met. List.Why is this new iron not classified? It should be classified before you start to sell it. Anne blackimpactika.comimpact...@aol.com On Sunday, March 17, 2024 at 08:37:22 PM MDT, Benzaki Mohamed via Meteorite-list wrote: Hi all the liste members hop having a great time. I present a nice iron 5kg.4 unclassified amateures sales slices) tested and etched a slice for sale a good price please everyone interested contacte me thanks.__ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15
I appreciate the immense amount of time I anticipated you would spend on your reply. Thinking extensively about this, I wondered why you tried to shame me as a hypocrite, even when you have witness to me striving for best practices. Having autism I often struggle to understand people's intention. Many times I have gone wrong assuming the worst in people's actions. So one of my strategies is to try to think of the best possible intention that someone could have. I admit sometimes it is difficult with your approach (and attempt to shame me) but since your critique was not sound I came to reason that you saw an injustice that I perpetrated against Benzaki Mohamed and you felt the need to "punch the bully in his face". A fierce sense of justice that sometimes leads me to act foolish is also part of my condition so I was able to have sympathy with this realization. Now that you have responded I can more clearly see your intention. So here is my considered response. To the community: I am happy to assist with meteoritics in any way that I can. If you have material that you feel might be paired with mine I am happy to look at any information and give my honest response. It would be unethical and dirty feeling to do otherwise. I have not made it to where I am in life by acting in short term interests. Relationships are life long. To Benzaki Mohamed: I am sorry if I shamed you. I am often blunt and act quickly. Jason's best point is that I should have reached out to you in private first. If you send me images or any supporting information I am happy to give you my honest opinion. You would then have my full support marketing the material as paired if it checks out. To Jason: I forgive you. I know what it is like to have conflict with the world. Best regards, Jason On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 5:50 PM Jason Utas wrote: > Hello Jason, > > As long as material is described accurately, I don't care what you do. I > only butted in here because it annoyed me to see you attacking a Moroccan > seller who is probably selling accurately paired material, while you’re > openly doing the same thing with other meteorites. Glass house + throwing > stones, not cool. > > I'm saying that it *should* be fine for you to buy and sell HaH 346 and > Jikharra 001 as those meteorites as long as you've accurately IDd them. > But not if you're going to tell other people they can't do the same thing. > That's the rub. > > Your points - > > 1 & 4) Why does it matter where you got your HaH 346? It didn't matter > to you where Benzaki got his NWA 15758. > > Your posts didn't address the origin of Benzaki Mohamed's CK in any > way, or whether or not his material is paired with NWA 15758. Based on > everything you've shared here, you don't know or care about whether or not > Benzaki's material is paired with yours. Your concern is "your NWA number" > and protecting that investment. I can empathize with that, but your #1 and > #4 bullet points don't agree with your actions: > > Did you ask Benzaki where his material had come from before you sent that > public complaint? No. Did you confirm that it came from a different > finder, the same place, or a different place? No. When it came to > 'protecting your NWA number,' none of that mattered. Sure, the onus is on > him to show it's paired, but you didn't give him a chance. > > You were preemptively trying to avoid any possible / probable pairings to > 'protect your investment.' I understand your motivations, and think many > dealers would take your side, but it's ethically questionable, at best. > TKWs affect meteorite values, and if you're aware of significant pairings, > (main) masses, etc., and you hide that information from your customers, > that's dishonest. Sure, new things can turn up, but what if a dealer sold > you a "main mass," and you later found out that they were aware of a larger > specimen all along? Would you care? Would you be annoyed? What would > you think? > > ...Is what you're doing here any different? > > You asked me what I would do. I sold some NWA 15364 (nakhlite) a while > back. When describing it, I said: "Northwest Africa 15364 is one member of > a large pairing group including, but not limited to: Hassi Messaoud 001, > Bir Moghrein 002, Qued Mya 005, NWA 13368, NWA 13669, NWA 13764, NWA 13786, > NWA 14369, NWA 14962, and NWA 15200. The published total known weight of > these finds is approximately 4.3 kilograms. It is probable that additional > pairings will be approved in the future." That was ~as accurate as I could > describe the meteorite's pairings and TKW, to the best of my ability. I > spent a bit of time looking at the analytical data for each of them in the > Bulletin, finding photos of each of them, and trying to make sure I got it > right. I guess I could have omitted mentioning the pairings, to make my > pieces seem more rare? Would that be honest? I'd say no. But a few > dealers are definitely doing
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15
Hello Jason, As long as material is described accurately, I don't care what you do. I only butted in here because it annoyed me to see you attacking a Moroccan seller who is probably selling accurately paired material, while you’re openly doing the same thing with other meteorites. Glass house + throwing stones, not cool. I'm saying that it *should* be fine for you to buy and sell HaH 346 and Jikharra 001 as those meteorites as long as you've accurately IDd them. But not if you're going to tell other people they can't do the same thing. That's the rub. Your points - 1 & 4) Why does it matter where you got your HaH 346? It didn't matter to you where Benzaki got his NWA 15758. Your posts didn't address the origin of Benzaki Mohamed's CK in any way, or whether or not his material is paired with NWA 15758. Based on everything you've shared here, you don't know or care about whether or not Benzaki's material is paired with yours. Your concern is "your NWA number" and protecting that investment. I can empathize with that, but your #1 and #4 bullet points don't agree with your actions: Did you ask Benzaki where his material had come from before you sent that public complaint? No. Did you confirm that it came from a different finder, the same place, or a different place? No. When it came to 'protecting your NWA number,' none of that mattered. Sure, the onus is on him to show it's paired, but you didn't give him a chance. You were preemptively trying to avoid any possible / probable pairings to 'protect your investment.' I understand your motivations, and think many dealers would take your side, but it's ethically questionable, at best. TKWs affect meteorite values, and if you're aware of significant pairings, (main) masses, etc., and you hide that information from your customers, that's dishonest. Sure, new things can turn up, but what if a dealer sold you a "main mass," and you later found out that they were aware of a larger specimen all along? Would you care? Would you be annoyed? What would you think? ...Is what you're doing here any different? You asked me what I would do. I sold some NWA 15364 (nakhlite) a while back. When describing it, I said: "Northwest Africa 15364 is one member of a large pairing group including, but not limited to: Hassi Messaoud 001, Bir Moghrein 002, Qued Mya 005, NWA 13368, NWA 13669, NWA 13764, NWA 13786, NWA 14369, NWA 14962, and NWA 15200. The published total known weight of these finds is approximately 4.3 kilograms. It is probable that additional pairings will be approved in the future." That was ~as accurate as I could describe the meteorite's pairings and TKW, to the best of my ability. I spent a bit of time looking at the analytical data for each of them in the Bulletin, finding photos of each of them, and trying to make sure I got it right. I guess I could have omitted mentioning the pairings, to make my pieces seem more rare? Would that be honest? I'd say no. But a few dealers are definitely doing that with some of those pairings... It hurts collectors. Last week, I saw someone comment on a Facebook post, excited because he'd purchased multiple pieces of the above nakhlites. He thought he'd bought pieces of different meteorites, not pieces of paired stones. He seemed disappointed to learn otherwise. It's great for the sellers, not so good for collectors. And it's not a new issue. The first similar instance I remember was in an ancient met-list thread back in the early 2000s, when someone tried to sell a meteorite paired with NWA 869. NWA...900ish, if I recall... It's probably been 15 years. Hmmm... http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/0989.html http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/1120.html http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/0961.html My email doesn't go back that far, had to find it on Google. NWA 900 is another 869 pairing, but the problem was NWA 904. I've never really sat down and thought about it, but a significant part of the NWA market is based on dealers pleading or feigning ignorance about pairings and TKWs to collectors. It's ~accepted conduct, and it’s totally unethical. Dean Bessey called it out back in 2004, and nothing's changed. 2 & 5) We're talking about scientific descriptions of rocks. Little rocks are rocks. Big rocks are rocks. Size doesn't matter. Unfortunately, larger finds and falls are widely distributed, tend to get less scrutiny, and get mislabeled often. Those three big meteorites you're using as examples are some of the biggest problems, because they're such large finds. Sure, it can be fun: I couldn't tell you the number of interesting things I've pulled out of lots of "NWA 869" over the years. And you should keep an eye out for the fresh L3s in shipments of HaH 346. Many of them still have skid-marks, and there's nothing quite like a W0 type-3. If you're on Facebook, you've probably seen the multi-kg lots of a totally new brecciated eucrite being
[meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
Monday, Mar 18 2024 Meteorite Picture of the Day: Clareton Contributed by: Anne Black http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/18/2024 __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
