Thread: Blocked post
I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm not sure what the problem is? Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00 Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00 -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Simon Riggs wrote: > I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice > now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm > not sure what the problem is? > > Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00 > Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00 Did you by any chance send it in .tar.gz format or such? Or was it plaintext? //Magnus
On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 19:40 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice > > now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm > > not sure what the problem is? > > > > Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00 > > Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00 > > Did you by any chance send it in .tar.gz format or such? Or was it > plaintext? Plaintext patch, plus two plaintext .c files. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 03:08:08PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 19:40 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice > > > now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm > > > not sure what the problem is? > > > > > > Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00 > > > Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00 > > > > Did you by any chance send it in .tar.gz format or such? Or was it > > plaintext? > > Plaintext patch, plus two plaintext .c files. Then I have no clue. If you can, get your mailserver logs (including the remote queue id) and send it to Marc, hopefully he can find out where they went. //Magnus
Simon Riggs wrote: > I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice > now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm > not sure what the problem is? > > Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00 > Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00 What an obvious ploy to get more time for development. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
"Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> Plaintext patch, plus two plaintext .c files. > > Then I have no clue. Actually I've had more success with .tar.gz than plain text attachments. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice >> now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm >> not sure what the problem is? >> >> Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00 >> Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00 > > What an obvious ploy to get more time for development. ;-) In a bid to stave off such accusations, Simon had a couple of us witness the outgoing mail in his Sent Items folder. We can arrange for copies of our notarized statements to be provided if necessary :-p /D
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>>> Plaintext patch, plus two plaintext .c files.
>>
>> Then I have no clue.
> Actually I've had more success with .tar.gz than plain text attachments.
I think the filter is not on the name or actual contents of the file,
but what MIME content-type it's labeled with. (Which is actually pretty
sensible, because the point is to reject anything that Microsloth mail
readers might try to auto-execute.)
Plain ol' application/octet-stream always gets through for me.
regards, tom lane
Dave Page wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > >> I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice > >> now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm > >> not sure what the problem is? > >> > >> Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00 > >> Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00 > > > > What an obvious ploy to get more time for development. ;-) > > In a bid to stave off such accusations, Simon had a couple of us witness > the outgoing mail in his Sent Items folder. We can arrange for copies of > our notarized statements to be provided if necessary :-p Well, FAST posted emails dated April 4 a few days ago, proving email dates are not a valid method of authenticating the "sent" date. Perhaps FAST's post-dated emails were meant to throw us off of Simon's pre-dating them. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Dave Page wrote: >> Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> Simon Riggs wrote: >>>> I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice >>>> now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm >>>> not sure what the problem is? >>>> >>>> Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00 >>>> Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00 >>> What an obvious ploy to get more time for development. ;-) >> In a bid to stave off such accusations, Simon had a couple of us witness >> the outgoing mail in his Sent Items folder. We can arrange for copies of >> our notarized statements to be provided if necessary :-p > > Well, FAST posted emails dated April 4 a few days ago, proving email > dates are not a valid method of authenticating the "sent" date. Perhaps > FAST's post-dated emails were meant to throw us off of Simon's pre-dating > them. ;-) > Darn, busted! After all that lobbying for a short release cycle we had to conspire with FAST to extend it again ;-) /D
Tom Lane wrote: > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >>>> Plaintext patch, plus two plaintext .c files. >>> Then I have no clue. > >> Actually I've had more success with .tar.gz than plain text attachments. > > I think the filter is not on the name or actual contents of the file, > but what MIME content-type it's labeled with. (Which is actually pretty > sensible, because the point is to reject anything that Microsloth mail > readers might try to auto-execute.) It certainly would be, if the list of blocked MIME-types had anything to do with reality. But really - windows doesn't even know what .tar.gz *is*. Can't even open it. Much less execute it. Having it block things like .exe, .bat etc makes a lot of sense. (And to be fair, it might've been fixed by now, but I've never seen any confirmation on whether it has been, even though I've asked several times, so I expect it's not). > Plain ol' application/octet-stream always gets through for me. Yeah, but that kinda assumes your MUA can change it. Microsoft ones certainly don't let you do that, and many others (Thunderbird, for example) don't either. //Magnus
Dave Page wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Dave Page wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> Simon Riggs wrote: > >>>> I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice > >>>> now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm > >>>> not sure what the problem is? > >>>> > >>>> Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00 > >>>> Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00 > >>> What an obvious ploy to get more time for development. ;-) > >> In a bid to stave off such accusations, Simon had a couple of us witness > >> the outgoing mail in his Sent Items folder. We can arrange for copies of > >> our notarized statements to be provided if necessary :-p > > > > Well, FAST posted emails dated April 4 a few days ago, proving email > > dates are not a valid method of authenticating the "sent" date. Perhaps > > FAST's post-dated emails were meant to throw us off of Simon's pre-dating > > them. ;-) > > > > Darn, busted! After all that lobbying for a short release cycle we had > to conspire with FAST to extend it again ;-) Yep, I suspected a conspiracy from the start. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +