Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.acorn.misc > #5928 > unrolled thread

Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.acorn.misc

Contents

  Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2012-07-25 10:50 +0100
    Re: Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro Ian <Ian.Hamilton@AAUG.net> - 2012-07-25 10:56 +0100
      Re: Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro Martin Bazley <martin.bazley@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2012-07-25 13:26 +0100
        Re: Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro John Sandford <lists@thesandfords.me.uk> - 2012-07-25 14:29 +0100
      Re: Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro Chris Evans <chris@cjemicros.co.uk> - 2012-07-25 17:51 +0100
        Re: Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro spampling <spam.pling@btinternet.com> - 2012-07-25 21:27 +0100
          Re: Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro Brian Carroll <bric-nospam@argonet.co.uk> - 2012-07-26 20:47 +0100
    Re: Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro Harriet Bazley <bazley@feathermail.co.uk> - 2012-07-26 04:27 +0100
      Re: Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro Alan Wrigley <spamhater@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> - 2012-07-26 09:04 +0100
      Re: Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro Dave Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2012-07-26 19:47 +0100
      Re: Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2012-07-26 21:01 +0100
        Re: Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro Harriet Bazley <bazley@feathermail.co.uk> - 2012-07-27 01:42 +0100
          Re: Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2012-07-27 02:50 +0100
          Re: Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro John Sandford <lists@thesandfords.me.uk> - 2012-07-27 10:11 +0100

#5928 — Lost e-mails on Virgin Media - using Netfetch and Messenger Pro

Recently I have not received a number of e-mails which I know were 
sent correctly to me, mainly from mobile devices. Virgin Media are no 
help. Anyone else having this problem?

Thanks

Barry

-- 
Barry Gray
http://www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
A child is a fire to be lit not a vessel to be filled 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#5929

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:50:40 +0100
Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Recently I have not received a number of e-mails which I know were 
> sent correctly to me, mainly from mobile devices. Virgin Media are no 
> help. Anyone else having this problem?

Have you tried viewing via webmail? They may have been caught in the
forced spam traps unless you've set 'Never send it to Spam' filters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5930

The following bytes were arranged on 25 Jul 2012 by Ian :

> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:50:40 +0100
> Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Recently I have not received a number of e-mails which I know were
> > sent correctly to me, mainly from mobile devices. Virgin Media are no
> > help. Anyone else having this problem?
>
> Have you tried viewing via webmail? They may have been caught in the
> forced spam traps unless you've set 'Never send it to Spam' filters.

I can confirm that this has been a problem.  Google are, in my
experience, slightly over-enthusiastic in what they mark as spam, and it
really pays to check the online spam folder occasionally.

-- 
  __<^>__
 / _   _ \         You always find something in the last place you look.
( ( |_| ) )
 \_>   <_/  ======================= Martin Bazley ==========================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5931

Martin Bazley <martin.bazley@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> The following bytes were arranged on 25 Jul 2012 by Ian :
> 
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:50:40 +0100 Barry Gray
> > <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Recently I have not received a number of e-mails which I know were
> > > sent correctly to me, mainly from mobile devices. Virgin Media are no
> > > help. Anyone else having this problem?
> >
> > Have you tried viewing via webmail? They may have been caught in the
> > forced spam traps unless you've set 'Never send it to Spam' filters.
> 
> I can confirm that this has been a problem.  Google are, in my experience,
> slightly over-enthusiastic in what they mark as spam, and it really pays
> to check the online spam folder occasionally.
> 
Use IMAP, then you can look in the spam folder anytime.Also this uses their
disc space to store/backup emails.

John

-- 
John Sandford
home

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5933

In article <20120725105610.67757c38@ian-desktop>, Ian
<URL:mailto:Ian.Hamilton@AAUG.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:50:40 +0100
> Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Recently I have not received a number of e-mails which I know were 
> > sent correctly to me, mainly from mobile devices. Virgin Media are no 
> > help. Anyone else having this problem?
> 
> Have you tried viewing via webmail? They may have been caught in the
> forced spam traps unless you've set 'Never send it to Spam' filters.

Yes talktalk introduced such a system without telling users a few months
ago and filtered emails are automatically deleted after 3? weeks, I worked
out what was happening... about 6 weeks after they introduced it!


Chris Evans

-- 
CJE Micro's / 4D                'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: 01903 523222             Fax: 01903 523679
chris@cjemicros.co.uk     http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex,     BN11 2EN
The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5934

In article <ant251645fc4pErr@client.cjemicros.co.uk>, Chris Evans
<chris@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes talktalk introduced such a system without telling users a few months
> ago and filtered emails are automatically deleted after 3? weeks, I
> worked out what was happening... about 6 weeks after they introduced it!

TalkTalk - part of the Opal telecom mob (along with the trashed up pipex
etc)

Their inability to communicate with users and even lie about what is
happening is worthy of platinum awards.

I wonder what made me move away from their group?

-- 

Steve Pampling

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5945

In article <52b4fb4f12spam.pling@btinternet.com>, spampling
<spam.pling@btinternet.com> wrote:
> In article <ant251645fc4pErr@client.cjemicros.co.uk>, Chris
> Evans <chris@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> > Yes talktalk introduced such a system without telling users
> > a few months ago and filtered emails are automatically
> > deleted after 3? weeks, I worked out what was happening...
> > about 6 weeks after they introduced it!

> TalkTalk - part of the Opal telecom mob (along with the
> trashed up pipex etc)

> Their inability to communicate with users and even lie about
> what is happening is worthy of platinum awards.

> I wonder what made me move away from their group?

Freedom2Surf was taken over too.  Beware TalkTalk terms and
conditions which are published in a point size that is unreadable
on screen, and right at the end of a very long document is the
section about minimum contract period.  If you change the details
of your contract, by their invitation or your request, you will
probably end up with a new contract period (2 years for me).

At one point I was losing emails caused by residual filtering at
a Freedom2Surf server that was still in use.  Once I worked out
how to turn filtering off completely I have had no more losses.


Brian.

-- 
______________________________________________________________

Brian Carroll, Ripon, North Yorkshire, UK  
______________________________________________________________

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5935

On 25 Jul 2012 as I do recall,
          Barry Gray  wrote:

> Recently I have not received a number of e-mails which I know were
> sent correctly to me, mainly from mobile devices. Virgin Media are no
> help. Anyone else having this problem?
>
I discovered two 'lost' e-mails this evening (logged as downloaded
individually by AntiSpam) appended to the end of the malformed HTML
section of an e-mail sent to a different address, and which had thus
been debatched as a single deformed unit filtered into the wrong folder.

Exactly what had happened I don't know - Messenger's backup file
demonstrates the problem:

[snip]
                             <tr>
                              <td align="center" valign="middle" height="20" bgcolor="#f7f7f7">
                              	<a name="header_travel_news" href="http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=9xk1ecI2unab7jI8" style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; color:#000000; text-decoration:none">Live travel news</a>
                              </td>
                            </tr>
                          </table>
                        </td>
                        <td width="1" height="30" bgcolor#! rmail 0016829
Delivered-To: harriet.bazley@blueyonder.co.uk
Received: by 10.64.51.227 with SMTP id n3csp41246ieo;
        Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.226.131 with SMTP id rs3mr44698805pbc.62.1343139822972;
        Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <sentto-18651379-37109-1343139821-harriet.bazley=blueyonder.co.uk@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
[snip]

Unsurprisingly Messenger couldn't spot the #!rmail in that position....

-- 
Harriet Bazley                     ==  Loyaulte me lie ==

Let a fool hold his tongue and he will pass for a sage.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5936

Harriet Bazley <bazley@feathermail.co.uk> wrote:

> On 25 Jul 2012 as I do recall,
>           Barry Gray  wrote:
> 
> > Recently I have not received a number of e-mails which I know were
> > sent correctly to me, mainly from mobile devices. Virgin Media are no
> > help. Anyone else having this problem?
> >
> I discovered two 'lost' e-mails this evening (logged as downloaded
> individually by AntiSpam) appended to the end of the malformed HTML
> section of an e-mail sent to a different address, and which had thus
> been debatched as a single deformed unit filtered into the wrong folder.

This would imply a fault in the debatching process.

Alan

-- 
RISC OS - you know it makes cents

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5943

In message <d8b321b552.harriet@blueyonder.co.uk>
          Harriet Bazley <bazley@feathermail.co.uk> wrote:

>I discovered two 'lost' e-mails this evening (logged as downloaded
>individually by AntiSpam) appended to the end of the malformed HTML
>section of an e-mail sent to a different address, and which had thus
>been debatched as a single deformed unit filtered into the wrong folder.
>
>Exactly what had happened I don't know - Messenger's backup file
>demonstrates the problem:
>
>[snip]
>                             <tr>
>                              <td align="center" valign="middle" height="20" bgcolor="#f7f7f7">
>                              	<a name="header_travel_news" href="http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=9xk1ecI2unab7jI8" style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; color:#000000; text-decoration:none">Live travel news</a>
>                              </td>
>                            </tr>
>                          </table>
>                        </td>
>                        <td width="1" height="30" bgcolor#! rmail 0016829
>Delivered-To: harriet.bazley@blueyonder.co.uk
>Received: by 10.64.51.227 with SMTP id n3csp41246ieo;
>        Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: by 10.68.226.131 with SMTP id rs3mr44698805pbc.62.1343139822972;
>        Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
>Return-Path: <sentto-18651379-37109-1343139821-harriet.bazley=blueyonder.co.uk@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
>[snip]
>
>Unsurprisingly Messenger couldn't spot the #!rmail in that position....

What would happen if the first of those two emails were stored in a
truncated form?

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5946

Harriet Bazley <bazley@feathermail.co.uk> wrote:


>Unsurprisingly Messenger couldn't spot the #!rmail in that position....

Indeed.  What about the #!rmail preceding this one, ie at the start of the
message with the html in it.  Does the byte count in that exactly match the
amount of (truncated) data, or is it greater?

The count in that should have been written to after the whole of the message
with the html had been fetched, in which case it should have a bigger value
than the actual size of the truncated message.

Then AntiSpam should have gone back to the EXT of the file, ie just after
the message with the html, written a new #!rmail line with an empty count,
and start appending more fetched data.  

Part of the problem looks like there should have been CR/LF (or whatever)
before the latest delimiter was written to the file, unless Antispam expects
that to be in the last few bytes of the message data (I can't remember). 

So if the ISP didn't send all the data for the html message, I wonder if
there's a situation where AntiSpam fails to notice that and starts to write
a new message?  Maybe if the very last chunk of data from the ISP only
contained CR/LF, it might get skipped by AntiSpam - again I can't remember
the ins & outs (of my code let alone Frank's).  ISTR some code that skipped
some CR/LFs under some circumstances, perhaps when looking for a CR, LF,
dot, CR LF 5-byet sequence.  (Or LF CR..., can't remember...) 



-- 
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsreplyaaa@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "aaa" by "284".  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5948

On 26 Jul 2012 as I do recall,
          Jeremy Nicoll - news posts  wrote:

> Harriet Bazley <bazley@feathermail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >Unsurprisingly Messenger couldn't spot the #!rmail in that position....

[snip]

> Then AntiSpam should have gone back to the EXT of the file, ie just after
> the message with the html, written a new #!rmail line with an empty count,
> and start appending more fetched data.
>
What puzzles me is that these are messages from two completely different
servers!

The first message was sent to a wingsandbeaks address - the two 'lost'
ones were sent to a blueyonder address.   They were downloaded by
AntiSpam in two separate fetches using different download files, and
should never have come anywhere near each other at all;  unless they
came into contact when passing through SpamStamp?

I'm assuming this is a one-off oddity;  fortunately this was mailing
list traffic that I wasn't particularly interested in (I was just
slightly puzzled to notice the follow-ups to a message I hadn't seen).

-- 
Harriet Bazley                     ==  Loyaulte me lie ==

Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5949

Harriet Bazley <bazley@feathermail.co.uk> wrote:

> What puzzles me is that these are messages from two completely different
> servers!

Not in itself impossible, if you fetch into the same file...

> The first message was sent to a wingsandbeaks address

(Gulp.)

> - the two 'lost' ones were sent to a blueyonder address.   They were
> downloaded by AntiSpam in two separate fetches using different download
> files,

Ah.

> and should never have come anywhere near each other at all;  unless they
> came into contact when passing through SpamStamp?
>
> I'm assuming this is a one-off oddity;  fortunately this was mailing list
> traffic that I wasn't particularly interested in (I was just slightly
> puzzled to notice the follow-ups to a message I hadn't seen).

It all looks somewhat like file handles getting corrupted.  Did anything
weird happen in any other app at the time?

-- 
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsreplyaaa@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "aaa" by "284".  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5950

Harriet Bazley <bazley@feathermail.co.uk> wrote:


> The first message was sent to a wingsandbeaks address - the two 'lost'
> ones were sent to a blueyonder address.   They were downloaded by AntiSpam
> in two separate fetches using different download files, and should never
> have come anywhere near each other at all;  unless they came into contact
> when passing through SpamStamp?
Have you got Spamstamp set to multitask ?, I've seen this occasionally in
the past, cured by setting Spamstamp to single task.
Not blaming Spamstamp specifically, just that the files are accessed by
multiple programs all running at the same time.

-- 
John Sandford
home

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.acorn.misc

csiph-web