On Sunday, 22 January 2023 23:04:43 GMT Michael wrote:
> Or if your ISP offer a webmail front end to their server, it should be
> easier to access the message with a browser.
Useful advice, Michael; thanks.
When I eventually found the right search terms, I went straight to the answer
I needed [
On Sunday, 22 January 2023 22:33:50 GMT Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 January 2023 09:30:34 GMT I wrote:
> > I'll see it it's my ISP who's bouncing the message.
>
> It looks as though they did reject the mail. I asked them please to let it
> through just this once, and now it's sitting o
On Thursday, 19 January 2023 09:30:34 GMT I wrote:
> I'll see it it's my ISP who's bouncing the message.
It looks as though they did reject the mail. I asked them please to let it
through just this once, and now it's sitting on their server (my ISP's).
Unfortunately, my local postfix is rejecti
On 1/20/23 9:09 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
I'm still getting bounce messages the same as all year.
Different meaning of "all the time".
- Not all sending domains use advanced security.
- Not all receiving domains use advanced security.
- Not all mailing lists account for advanced security.
On Friday, 20 January 2023 14:44:24 GMT Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 1/20/23 2:07 AM, Dale wrote:
> > It's odd in my opinion. Maybe someone will figure it out.
>
> I think it's been figured out. This is where "this isn't done all the
> time" comes into play.
I'm still getting bounce messages the s
On 1/20/23 2:07 AM, Dale wrote:
It could be the OP is running into the same problem I have in the
past, whatever that problems is.
My experience is that this is a combination of advanced email protection
on the sender /and/ the receiver.
E.g. the sending domain's email configuration specifie
Grant,
On Thursday, 2023-01-19 22:59:48 -0700, you wrote:
> ...
> I tried it a few times.
>
> I'd see mail log entries where the re-sent messages would fail the same
> way that the original sent message failed. :-/
Me too :-(
But isn't this changeable? It's a list maintained by Gentoo.Org,
Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 1/18/23 4:19 PM, Dale wrote:
>> I might add, in the past I followed the instructions to get bounced
>> messages, I've never once had it work. I don't get a error or
>> anything either, like I do if I do something wrong doing something else.
>
> I tried it a few times.
>
>
On 1/18/23 4:19 PM, Dale wrote:
I might add, in the past I followed the instructions to get bounced
messages, I've never once had it work. I don't get a error or anything
either, like I do if I do something wrong doing something else.
I tried it a few times.
I'd see mail log entries where th
On Thursday, 19 January 2023 08:56:41 GMT Nuno Silva wrote:
> Did the bounce report you got reproduce any reason/message from the
> system it failed to deliver the message to?
No, just the standard list of message numbers.
> This message was particularly quite large, so it could be simply that..
Dave
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023, 18:20 Dale wrote:
> Grant Taylor wrote:
> > On 1/18/23 8:07 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >> You can also request redelivery of messages based on the internal
> >> numbers if you follow the help advice in all list message headers.
> >
> > The problem is that if the messag
Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 1/18/23 8:07 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> You can also request redelivery of messages based on the internal
>> numbers if you follow the help advice in all list message headers.
>
> The problem is that if the message is rejected because of filtering
> the first time around,
On 1/18/23 8:07 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
You can also request redelivery of messages based on the internal
numbers if you follow the help advice in all list message headers.
The problem is that if the message is rejected because of filtering the
first time around, there's a very good chance th
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 08:51:10 -0500, Jack wrote:
> >> Now was there (I recall asking about this previously, but I forgot
> >> what the answer was) a way to get a message-ID from that internal
> >> number, or at least a way to get the address of the message's
> >> archive copy on the gentoo website?
On 1/18/23 06:44, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 January 2023 08:59:21 GMT Nuno Silva wrote:
[ ]
Now was there (I recall asking about this previously, but I forgot what
the answer was) a way to get a message-ID from that internal number, or
at least a way to get the address of t
On Wednesday, 18 January 2023 08:59:21 GMT Nuno Silva wrote:
> And *now* I haven't received one of these messages I was talking about
> (which would usually appear for every post of mine to the list, albeit
> possibly delayed by a few hours), so I guess either the forwarding
> problem was fixed or
Send again
David
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023, 19:50 Jigme Datse wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 10:25:27 +
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 14 January 2023 07:00:29 GMT Nuno Silva wrote:
> > > On 2023-01-13, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > Hello list,
> > > >
> > > > Ever since the new year
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 10:25:27 +
Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 January 2023 07:00:29 GMT Nuno Silva wrote:
> > On 2023-01-13, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > Hello list,
> > >
> > > Ever since the new year I've been getting a bounce message from
> > > this list
> > > - 19 of them so fa
On Saturday, 14 January 2023 07:00:29 GMT Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2023-01-13, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > Ever since the new year I've been getting a bounce message from this list
> > - 19 of them so far. The first of those listed one message twice, most of
> > the others six time
On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 13:39:57 GMT you wrote:
> On 1/13/20 5:24 PM, (Nuno Silva) wrote:
> > On 2020-01-13, james wrote:
> >> On 1/13/20 11:32 AM, gentoo-user+ow...@lists.gentoo.org wrote:
> >>> Some messages to you could not be delivered. If you're seeing this
> >>> message it means things ar
On 1/13/20 5:24 PM, (Nuno Silva) wrote:
On 2020-01-13, james wrote:
On 1/13/20 11:32 AM, gentoo-user+ow...@lists.gentoo.org wrote:
Some messages to you could not be delivered. If you're seeing this
message it means things are back to normal, and it's merely for your
information.
Here is the
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 22:24:51 +, (Nuno Silva) wrote:
> >> Here is the list of the bounced messages:
> >> - 189231
>
> How does one get to the message from that number?
Look at the List-Help header in any message. Following that returns a
list of commands you can send to the listserv.
--
On 03/02/2018 05:47 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Flam^H^H^H^H value judgments aside, does DMARC also change the long
standing standard of sending rejections to the envelope address?
No, DMARC should not change the principle operation of SMTP, save for
additional checks that messages must pass. Al
On 03/02/2018 09:36 AM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
These are all from Grant Taylor. They are DKIM-signed, and, not
surprisingly given the list header and footer munging, signature
verification fails (on my mail server).
Correct. DKIM verification is failing and my DMARC policy is configured
to RE
Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-03-01 23:48, Branko Grubic wrote:
>
>>> I keep my messages locally so when I miss messages, it can throw a
>>> thread into some random weirdness. If one uses the web interface to
>>> read/reply etc then it wouldn't matter but for those who use email
>>> software, it
25 matches
Mail list logo
