Huh? WTF? Over. I'm just saying that maybe we ought to look at the secondary MX record in DNS. -----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Luke-Jr Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:27 AM To: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: test On Thursday 16 February 2006 13:40, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO wrote:
Aha! So the ILLIANA.net server (old server) is there and knows it isn't supposed to be receiving the messages. I'd say that whoever has the access to the DNS records for the LUG needs to remove the fallback MX record completely or shange it to something that can spool and eventually forward the mail correctly.
eh... want to 'federate' MX backup? :)
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 09:38 -0600, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO wrote:
Huh? WTF? Over. I'm just saying that maybe we ought to look at the secondary MX record in DNS. ... -----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Luke-Jr ... On Thursday 16 February 2006 13:40, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO wrote:
Aha! So the ILLIANA.net server (old server) is there and knows it isn't supposed to be receiving the messages. I'd say that whoever has the access to the DNS records for the LUG needs to remove the fallback MX record completely or shange it to something that can spool and eventually forward the mail correctly. ... eh... want to 'federate' MX backup? :)
Hal has control of kclug.org's DNS. That aside, a thread breaking, untrimmed bottom post followed by a thread breaking, untrimmed top post. PLEASE pick *something* and stick with it; following threads with postings from your mail client is becoming a field of archeology... -- Jason Clinton <me@jasonclinton.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 I myself like the untrimmed top post with a (scroll down) Jason Clinton wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 09:38 -0600, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO wrote:
Huh? WTF? Over. I'm just saying that maybe we ought to look at the secondary MX record in DNS. ... -----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Luke-Jr ...
Nice beautiful middle post.
On Thursday 16 February 2006 13:40, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO wrote:
Aha! So the ILLIANA.net server (old server) is there and knows it isn't supposed to be receiving the messages. I'd say that whoever has the access to the DNS records for the LUG needs to remove the fallback MX record completely or shange it to something that can spool and eventually forward the mail correctly. ... eh... want to 'federate' MX backup? :)
Hal has control of kclug.org's DNS.
That aside, a thread breaking, untrimmed bottom post followed by a thread breaking, untrimmed top post.
PLEASE pick *something* and stick with it; following threads with postings from your mail client is becoming a field of archeology...
But you wont find that in any of the standards group that tell us how we should send mail. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFD9L2Jenu/hjGrfz4RAyL3AJ9JaUEe+eP1vG5xAzeuvbIOZMjzigCcDIrK oMOMetYNS586ReNdK90WDk8= =L6SR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 11:59 -0600, Tom Bruno wrote:
But you wont find that in any of the standards group that tell us how we should send mail.
It's not a matter of standards at all. I have given up on that. It's a matter of not being rude -- expecting everyone who reads this list make up for your lazy disregard for the rest of us. If you can't spend 2 seconds to make a legible email why should the other 450 of us EACH spend 5+ seconds to compensate? It makes be angry because it's flagrant disregard for the rest of us. And yes, this email is intended to start a flame war. I'm tired of this bull shit. -- Jason Clinton <me@jasonclinton.com>
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:45:33 -0600 Jason Clinton <me@jasonclinton.com> wrote:
It's not a matter of standards at all. I have given up on that. It's a matter of not being rude -- expecting everyone who reads this list make up for your lazy disregard for the rest of us. If you can't spend 2 seconds to make a legible email why should the other 450 of us EACH spend 5+ seconds to compensate?
It makes be angry because it's flagrant disregard for the rest of us.
And yes, this email is intended to start a flame war. I'm tired of this bull shit.
I certainly understand your frustration, but instead of getting angry about it, just do what I do. If I can't read the E-mail, I move on... If I find someone who, after sending several messages, doesn't know how to properly reply on mailinglists ( or refuses to ), it is handled very simply. I completely ignore everything they have to say. If they are truly annoying I simply reject their E-mail at my mail server. Like you said, if person can't or won't get why this is important they obviously are not going to be able to "get" any help I may be trying to send their way and are in all honesty, simply not worth my time. --------------------------------- Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org> http://www.wiles.org ---------------------------------
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 14:25 -0600, Frank Wiles wrote:
I certainly understand your frustration, but instead of getting angry about it, just do what I do. If I can't read the E-mail, I move on...
I appreciate your tempered response and a more rational approach to the issue however, I find that I can not just let it slide. I am personally invested in the vitality of the local Linux community. In the past 3 years I have taught Linux classes to the community for free in my free time; in the last year I have employed no less that 5 members of this mailing list; excluding this last year, I manned the boot at ITEC for three years; and finally, I assisted in the deployment and implementation of the new, locally hosted KCLUG server. My job in Linux, the Ruby book that I'm writing, the local employment pool, the KC Ruby Users Group who's mailing list I administer, the furtherment of OSS ideology ... ALL of these are related and dependent on a healthy community -- especially locally. So, I would appreciate it if people would try to avoid being inconsiderate of others. Every mailing to this list is on permanent record and, more importantly, has a lasting effect on those who read it. Please consider the consequences, however small, when you hit send. -- Jason Clinton <me@jasonclinton.com>
On 2/16/06, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO <brian.kelsay@kcc.usda.gov> wrote:
Huh? WTF? Over. I'm just saying that maybe we ought to look at the secondary MX record in DNS.
-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Luke-Jr Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:27 AM To: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: test
On Thursday 16 February 2006 13:40, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO wrote:
Aha! So the ILLIANA.net server (old server) is there and knows it isn't supposed to be receiving the messages. I'd say that whoever has the access to the DNS records for the LUG needs to remove the fallback MX record completely or shange it to something that can spool and eventually forward the mail correctly.
eh... want to 'federate' MX backup? :)
On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:38, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO wrote:
Luke-Jr wrote:
eh... want to 'federate' MX backup? :) Huh? WTF? Over. I'm just saying that maybe we ought to look at the secondary MX record in DNS.
In other words, we could make a list of domains we control and mail servers we control, and agree to do MX backup for each other's domains on our mail servers.
participants (6)
-
djgoku -
Frank Wiles -
Jason Clinton -
Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO -
Luke-Jr -
Tom Bruno