Date   

moderated Re: sbcglobal.net blocking us #update

William Halte
 

Mark, 

My users at prodigy.net are getting the same message as the sbcglobal.net accounts. The error message " ff-ip4-mx-vip1.prodigy.net: 553 5.3.0 flpd575 DNSBL:RBL 521< 66.175.222.12 >_is_blocked.For assistance forward this error to abuse_rbl@...".  I have directed my users to contact AT&T as directed by the message. 

Hopefully, they will be more responsive then Cox.net in fixing the issue.

Bill 


On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:34 AM Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,

Since yesterday mid-day, sbcglobal.net has been blocking us. I have attempted to contact them, but no response so far. If you are an sbcglobal.net user, I ask that you contact them as well.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: sbcglobal.net blocking us #update

Duane
 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:34 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
sbcglobal.net has been blocking us
This also includes the related domains such as att.net  (lots of complaints on GMF about this ;>)

Duane


moderated sbcglobal.net blocking us #update

 

Hi All,

Since yesterday mid-day, sbcglobal.net has been blocking us. I have attempted to contact them, but no response so far. If you are an sbcglobal.net user, I ask that you contact them as well.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

Duane,

Or in other words, according to what you wrote, the probe bounces are possibly not *supposed* to be tracked in the Activity Log; but the experience now (the bug I'm bringing up) is they are currently, for whatever reason, actually triggering  "is bouncing" entries there.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Need for Better Quality Photo Viewing #done

Duane
 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:10 AM, epiplan wrote:
There must have been, originally, a reason to do this, I'd guess to do with bandwidth, but is that reason still valid with today's superfast optical broadband, 5G, unlimited data contracts and cheap data storage?
It's been this way for almost 5 years, https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/2366  You may have an unlimited, high-speed connection, but not everyone does, including me.  You also need to remember that GIO has to serve these images, so that could be part of the concern.  I'd rather that pictures be a bit distorted in the view mode than to have serious delays when reading/responding to messages.  If I need more detail, which I seldom do, I just select Download.

Duane


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 09:34 AM, Duane wrote:
The bounces of the probes wasn't logged in the Activity Log, but was logged in the member's Email Delivery History as of July/August last year.
Thanks for the sanity check. I remember someone having requested that they be tracked, and tracking bouncing of the probes could indeed be very useful (as I just wrote in the separate thread about this specific situation, separate from 554). I think the Activity Log tracker did not, before that change, have to worry about being triggered for further bounces until the probes themselves started being tracked, because there were no furhter bounces *of group messages* (since none are sent). But that could be exactly the problem: now that the probes themselves are handled by the bounce system, an "is bouncing" status gets triggered for them, too. 
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

Duane
 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:58 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
If I recall the ancient history correctly (and I may not), bouncing of bounce probes themselves did not used to be tracked/logged.
Based on my limited investigation, you're partially correct.  The bounces of the probes wasn't logged in the Activity Log, but was logged in the member's Email Delivery History as of July/August last year.

Duane


moderated Re: Bounce handler adds "is bouncing" log entry for bounce from another group, when member already blue B in the group #bug

 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 09:15 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
Bounce Probes show up in the individual member's Email Delivery History.
Yes, and that's one more reason why you don't need or want further "is bouncing" entries in the group activity log. However, a group activity log entry to the effect that the member is actually bouncing the probes themselves (without having to look in their delivery history) would be very useful. I used to click "send bounce probe" every time I saw "is bouncing." Knowing specifically (and easily) that even the probes are bouncing would be useful.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Bounce handler adds "is bouncing" log entry for bounce from another group, when member already blue B in the group #bug

Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 05:13 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I think as moderators we do want to know when a bounce probe itself has bounced, so that we can not send any more of them.
Bounce Probes show up in the individual member's Email Delivery History.

Chris


moderated Re: Bounce handler adds "is bouncing" log entry for bounce from another group, when member already blue B in the group #bug

 

Mark,
Sorry for the dribble of thoughts. Things keep occurring to me, but I will stop after this. I think as moderators we do want to know when a bounce probe itself has bounced, so that we can not send any more of them. So perhaps a special log entry could be created called "bounced a bounce probe," or something to that effect, rather than the repeated "is bouncing" entry.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

John et al,

I'd already started a separate topic for the multiple "is bouncing" entries bug. I just posted an update in it, but I'll repeat quickly here and then move over there from now on: After an account is marked as Bouncing, the system stops sending group emails to it. The subsequent multiple "is bouncing" log entries I/we are seeing are due to bounce probes themselves bouncing. If I recall the ancient history correctly (and I may not), bouncing of bounce probes themselves did not used to be tracked/logged. And as long as they weren't, the "is bouncing" trigger did not have to be checked for subsequent messages, because there were none. But with the probes themselves being tracked by the bounce system, I think the trigger should be calmed to not activate for a bounce probe message.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Need for Better Quality Photo Viewing #done

epiplan
 

Charlie, this confirms my experiment above.

The question is, can anybody do anything about the 720x720 downsampling?

There must have been, originally, a reason to do this, I'd guess to do with bandwidth, but is that reason still valid with today's superfast optical broadband, 5G, unlimited data contracts and cheap data storage?

Peter


moderated Re: Need for Better Quality Photo Viewing #done

Charlie Behnken
 

Forgot about this with all the holiday stuff.  

I will make a simple statement that the same photos on Yahoo were displayed without any issues.  It is not the photos.    To be precise, I did not transfer photos from Yahoo.  I uploaded the same image files from my computer to Yahoo.

And as far as upsizing, I checked again, and  the image displayed when selected  does not fill up the entire screen leaving white space and part of the breadcrumb visible. The downloaded image (1280 x1278) when shown on my desktop is slightly larger filling the screen space top to bottom with no white space.  If I upload the photo at 720x719 size, the selected image is the same size as the 1280x1278, then the downloaded image is smaller.

Don't know if any of this helps, but the images on Groups.io are blurry, and there is nothing I can do about it.

Charlie


moderated Re: Bounce handler adds "is bouncing" log entry for bounce from another group, when member already blue B in the group #bug

 

Mark,

The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether the problem lies in the part of the code that handles bounces of bounce probes, rather than the part that handles bounces of group messages. In my example, the extra "is bouncing" log entries stemmed from bounces of bounce probes. IIRC (and I may not), tracking bouncing of bounce probes was a later add-on. Just a thought.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 04:55 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
in most if not cases recently examined the "554.30 account disabled" report is always accompanied by a total lack of "recent" activity, where there is no sign of any posts having been made in the last 5 years or even more
Exactly. It's been very useful in finding these cases.
And yes, as you say, the issue is the contiguous list of bounces, but not recorded as bounces: recorded (erroneously) as bounce-status changes.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

You also certainly do not want a log entry for every message a member bounces. That would be an unholy mess. The “is bouncing” should really only be logged when the account’s status changes to Bouncing. And that is the bug: instead, it is logged repeatedly.


On Feb 6, 2020, at 6:34 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

ps Rhe reason I say there has been no status change is that there are no intervening entires “x is no longer bouncing.” Granted thst in itself could be a logging bug (I.e., the account did unbound but was not logged), but it doesn’t appear to be.


On Feb 6, 2020, at 6:26 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

John,

I agree with you on the general principle of the log entry. But I think the problem is with the language of the entry. “X is bouncing” implies a change in status when there has been no change. So I find it extremely misleading. 

The solution is either to ditch the log entry once the account has already been marked as bouncing, or change subsequent entries after the actual status change to indicate that the account has just bounced another messsge. But because if the complications with and definitions of the Bouncing status, I would favor simply not logging subsequent bounces. I think it could be tricky.


On Feb 6, 2020, at 4:17 AM, John Pearce <jponsalt@...> wrote:

It is great that this has been set for a hard bounce.  I hate going through the group one by one to inspect the mail history.  I have to be honest, I'm still not clear on the anomaly you are referring to.  Probably because I see only what appears to be logical to me.  One bounce, one user mail history activity log entry, and one group activity log entry.  Per bounce and continues to log them each bounce, even when a person is already marked as B and the following bounces continue to log either from a bounce probe or maybe a new message from the group.  This seems logical to me that both logs contain an entry.  Updating the user mail history without a log entry once a person is already a B seems to unnecessarily complicate the code required from Mark.  And some people would think, hey, there's something wrong here, there's no entry in the group activity log!  Depends on how your mind works.  As a life long operating systems programmer on large scale IBM computers (since the 70's) I hate to see things complicated for very thin reasons even though they are valid.

J

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

ps Rhe reason I say there has been no status change is that there are no intervening entires “x is no longer bouncing.” Granted thst in itself could be a logging bug (I.e., the account did unbound but was not logged), but it doesn’t appear to be.


On Feb 6, 2020, at 6:26 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

John,

I agree with you on the general principle of the log entry. But I think the problem is with the language of the entry. “X is bouncing” implies a change in status when there has been no change. So I find it extremely misleading. 

The solution is either to ditch the log entry once the account has already been marked as bouncing, or change subsequent entries after the actual status change to indicate that the account has just bounced another messsge. But because if the complications with and definitions of the Bouncing status, I would favor simply not logging subsequent bounces. I think it could be tricky.


On Feb 6, 2020, at 4:17 AM, John Pearce <jponsalt@...> wrote:

It is great that this has been set for a hard bounce.  I hate going through the group one by one to inspect the mail history.  I have to be honest, I'm still not clear on the anomaly you are referring to.  Probably because I see only what appears to be logical to me.  One bounce, one user mail history activity log entry, and one group activity log entry.  Per bounce and continues to log them each bounce, even when a person is already marked as B and the following bounces continue to log either from a bounce probe or maybe a new message from the group.  This seems logical to me that both logs contain an entry.  Updating the user mail history without a log entry once a person is already a B seems to unnecessarily complicate the code required from Mark.  And some people would think, hey, there's something wrong here, there's no entry in the group activity log!  Depends on how your mind works.  As a life long operating systems programmer on large scale IBM computers (since the 70's) I hate to see things complicated for very thin reasons even though they are valid.

J

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

John,

I agree with you on the general principle of the log entry. But I think the problem is with the language of the entry. “X is bouncing” implies a change in status when there has been no change. So I find it extremely misleading. 

The solution is either to ditch the log entry once the account has already been marked as bouncing, or change subsequent entries after the actual status change to indicate that the account has just bounced another messsge. But because if the complications with and definitions of the Bouncing status, I would favor simply not logging subsequent bounces. I think it could be tricky.


On Feb 6, 2020, at 4:17 AM, John Pearce <jponsalt@...> wrote:

It is great that this has been set for a hard bounce.  I hate going through the group one by one to inspect the mail history.  I have to be honest, I'm still not clear on the anomaly you are referring to.  Probably because I see only what appears to be logical to me.  One bounce, one user mail history activity log entry, and one group activity log entry.  Per bounce and continues to log them each bounce, even when a person is already marked as B and the following bounces continue to log either from a bounce probe or maybe a new message from the group.  This seems logical to me that both logs contain an entry.  Updating the user mail history without a log entry once a person is already a B seems to unnecessarily complicate the code required from Mark.  And some people would think, hey, there's something wrong here, there's no entry in the group activity log!  Depends on how your mind works.  As a life long operating systems programmer on large scale IBM computers (since the 70's) I hate to see things complicated for very thin reasons even though they are valid.

J

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:17 PM, John Pearce wrote:
I'm still not clear on the anomaly you are referring to
Unless I am much mistaken (always possible!) the anomaly is that while the individual member's Email Delivery History appears to be correct the group - wide Activity log can show a contiguous list of several bounces for the same member that cannot be correlated with message traffic within the group.

I haven't looked to see if this phenomenon is apparent on any member subscriptions that are set to Special Messages only or if it can also occur with those with less restricted settings.

If I get the chance I might try a further analysis later, but as I said previously my main references are the individual's Activity and Email Delivery logs; as it would be perfectly normal to have Special Notices only as a setting if the person concerned interacted with a group (or groups, plural) using the web UI. If I found a member with a serious bounce problem but with evidence of recent posting activity my initial instinct would be to leave the membership in place and try to investigate further.

That said in most if not cases recently examined the "554.30 account disabled" report is always accompanied by a total lack of "recent" activity, where there is no sign of any posts having been made in the last 5 years or even more.

Chris


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

John Pearce
 

It is great that this has been set for a hard bounce.  I hate going through the group one by one to inspect the mail history.  I have to be honest, I'm still not clear on the anomaly you are referring to.  Probably because I see only what appears to be logical to me.  One bounce, one user mail history activity log entry, and one group activity log entry.  Per bounce and continues to log them each bounce, even when a person is already marked as B and the following bounces continue to log either from a bounce probe or maybe a new message from the group.  This seems logical to me that both logs contain an entry.  Updating the user mail history without a log entry once a person is already a B seems to unnecessarily complicate the code required from Mark.  And some people would think, hey, there's something wrong here, there's no entry in the group activity log!  Depends on how your mind works.  As a life long operating systems programmer on large scale IBM computers (since the 70's) I hate to see things complicated for very thin reasons even though they are valid.

J