Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/ - OS2

This is a discussion on Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/ - OS2 ; I have been using MajorMajor for years to run two mailing lists for my extended family. one has seventeen subscribers, and the other ninety-seven. The two unique addresses for the two lists are mailboxes on a remote server; these two ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

  1. Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    I have been using MajorMajor for years to run two mailing lists for my
    extended family. one has seventeen subscribers, and the other ninety-seven.
    The two unique addresses for the two lists are mailboxes on a remote server;
    these two mailboxes are configured identically, as are the two lists in
    MajorMajor. The lists are moderated, so that in practice I am the only one
    that posts to them.

    The smaller list continues to operate properly, Articles sent to the mailbox
    of the larger are not distributed; instead, when MM processes them, its
    screen shows the sumbscribers' addresses, each followed by an error message
    saying "Too many addressees". Apparently, the hosting service has placed a
    new limit on the number of addresses.

    But this surprises me, as I thought MM sends out each copy individually, so
    that the distribution doesn't look like a mass mailing. And this seems
    confirmed by the fact that all the addresses are listed on the MM screen.
    Was I wrong? Have other users had this experience?


  2. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 22:58:00 UTC, "Stan Goodman"
    wrote:

    -> I have been using MajorMajor for years to run two mailing lists for my
    -> extended family. one has seventeen subscribers, and the other ninety-seven.
    -> The two unique addresses for the two lists are mailboxes on a remote server;
    -> these two mailboxes are configured identically, as are the two lists in
    -> MajorMajor. The lists are moderated, so that in practice I am the only one
    -> that posts to them.
    ->
    -> The smaller list continues to operate properly, Articles sent to the mailbox
    -> of the larger are not distributed; instead, when MM processes them, its
    -> screen shows the sumbscribers' addresses, each followed by an error message
    -> saying "Too many addressees". Apparently, the hosting service has placed a
    -> new limit on the number of addresses.
    ->
    -> But this surprises me, as I thought MM sends out each copy individually, so
    -> that the distribution doesn't look like a mass mailing. And this seems
    -> confirmed by the fact that all the addresses are listed on the MM screen.
    -> Was I wrong? Have other users had this experience?
    ->

    Stan,

    The VOICE News list is run off of MajorMajor with Weasel as the mail
    server running on the VOICE server. We have 665 subscribers and as
    far as I know each post is sent out separately. Maybe the host mail
    server is looking at the number of posts with the same subject and
    complaining because there are so many with the same subject. Perhaps
    its to identify and block SPAM from being sent. Have you asked them?

    Mark

    --
    From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

    http://www.os2voice.org
    Warpstock 2006, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, Oct 12-15, 2006 -
    http://www.warpstock.org

  3. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 00:11:49 UTC, "Mark Dodel"
    opined:
    > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 22:58:00 UTC, "Stan Goodman"
    > wrote:
    >
    > -> I have been using MajorMajor for years to run two mailing lists for my
    > -> extended family. one has seventeen subscribers, and the other ninety-seven.
    > -> The two unique addresses for the two lists are mailboxes on a remote server;
    > -> these two mailboxes are configured identically, as are the two lists in
    > -> MajorMajor. The lists are moderated, so that in practice I am the only one
    > -> that posts to them.
    > ->
    > -> The smaller list continues to operate properly, Articles sent to the mailbox
    > -> of the larger are not distributed; instead, when MM processes them, its
    > -> screen shows the sumbscribers' addresses, each followed by an error message
    > -> saying "Too many addressees". Apparently, the hosting service has placed a
    > -> new limit on the number of addresses.
    > ->
    > -> But this surprises me, as I thought MM sends out each copy individually, so
    > -> that the distribution doesn't look like a mass mailing. And this seems
    > -> confirmed by the fact that all the addresses are listed on the MM screen.
    > -> Was I wrong? Have other users had this experience?
    > ->
    >
    > Stan,
    >
    > The VOICE News list is run off of MajorMajor with Weasel as the mail
    > server running on the VOICE server. We have 665 subscribers and as
    > far as I know each post is sent out separately. Maybe the host mail
    > server is looking at the number of posts with the same subject and
    > complaining because there are so many with the same subject. Perhaps
    > its to identify and block SPAM from being sent. Have you asked them?
    >
    > Mark


    Yes, I knew that you are using MajorMajor. Thanks for confirming that
    messages are sent separately as I thought. The only possible explanation
    then is as you have said, and the reason they would do that is reasonable,
    though inconvenient for me. I haven't asked them, and I don't know that
    asking would help -- they are not going to change things for me.

    The mailboxes are on the servers of the hosting service; they also have a
    mailing-list facility ("EZMLM"). I think the best solution is to move the
    larger mailing list from MajorMajor on my machine to EXMLM on theirs.


  4. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 00:11:49 UTC, "Mark Dodel"
    opined:
    > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 22:58:00 UTC, "Stan Goodman"
    > wrote:
    >
    > -> I have been using MajorMajor for years to run two mailing lists for my
    > -> extended family. one has seventeen subscribers, and the other ninety-seven.
    > -> The two unique addresses for the two lists are mailboxes on a remote server;
    > -> these two mailboxes are configured identically, as are the two lists in
    > -> MajorMajor. The lists are moderated, so that in practice I am the only one
    > -> that posts to them.
    > ->
    > -> The smaller list continues to operate properly, Articles sent to the mailbox
    > -> of the larger are not distributed; instead, when MM processes them, its
    > -> screen shows the sumbscribers' addresses, each followed by an error message
    > -> saying "Too many addressees". Apparently, the hosting service has placed a
    > -> new limit on the number of addresses.
    > ->
    > -> But this surprises me, as I thought MM sends out each copy individually, so
    > -> that the distribution doesn't look like a mass mailing. And this seems
    > -> confirmed by the fact that all the addresses are listed on the MM screen.
    > -> Was I wrong? Have other users had this experience?
    > ->
    >
    > Stan,
    >
    > The VOICE News list is run off of MajorMajor with Weasel as the mail
    > server running on the VOICE server. We have 665 subscribers and as
    > far as I know each post is sent out separately. Maybe the host mail
    > server is looking at the number of posts with the same subject and
    > complaining because there are so many with the same subject. Perhaps
    > its to identify and block SPAM from being sent. Have you asked them?
    >
    > Mark


    Are you using Weasel with your MajorMajor?

    I wonder if it would make a difference if I would switch to Weasel, so that
    the distributed messages would actually be sent one at a time from my
    machine, rather than one at a time from a mailbox on the hosting service.
    Would their ability to detect the number of addressees still exist?



  5. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:07:39 UTC, "Stan Goodman"
    wrote:

    -> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 00:11:49 UTC, "Mark Dodel"
    -> opined:
    -> > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 22:58:00 UTC, "Stan Goodman"
    -> > wrote:
    -> >
    -> > -> I have been using MajorMajor for years to run two mailing lists for my
    -> > -> extended family. one has seventeen subscribers, and the other ninety-seven.
    -> > -> The two unique addresses for the two lists are mailboxes on a remote server;
    -> > -> these two mailboxes are configured identically, as are the two lists in
    -> > -> MajorMajor. The lists are moderated, so that in practice I am the only one
    -> > -> that posts to them.
    -> > ->
    -> > -> The smaller list continues to operate properly, Articles sent to the mailbox
    -> > -> of the larger are not distributed; instead, when MM processes them, its
    -> > -> screen shows the sumbscribers' addresses, each followed by an error message
    -> > -> saying "Too many addressees". Apparently, the hosting service has placed a
    -> > -> new limit on the number of addresses.
    -> > ->
    -> > -> But this surprises me, as I thought MM sends out each copy individually, so
    -> > -> that the distribution doesn't look like a mass mailing. And this seems
    -> > -> confirmed by the fact that all the addresses are listed on the MM screen.
    -> > -> Was I wrong? Have other users had this experience?
    -> > ->
    -> >
    -> > Stan,
    -> >
    -> > The VOICE News list is run off of MajorMajor with Weasel as the mail
    -> > server running on the VOICE server. We have 665 subscribers and as
    -> > far as I know each post is sent out separately. Maybe the host mail
    -> > server is looking at the number of posts with the same subject and
    -> > complaining because there are so many with the same subject. Perhaps
    -> > its to identify and block SPAM from being sent. Have you asked them?
    -> >
    -> > Mark
    ->
    -> Are you using Weasel with your MajorMajor?

    Yes. I think Ken (the VOICE server admin) is running the latest
    Weasel.

    ->
    -> I wonder if it would make a difference if I would switch to Weasel, so that
    -> the distributed messages would actually be sent one at a time from my
    -> machine, rather than one at a time from a mailbox on the hosting service.
    -> Would their ability to detect the number of addressees still exist?
    ->

    I doubt it would make a difference. I thought you were already using
    a mail server to do this?

    Mark

    --
    From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

    http://www.os2voice.org
    Warpstock 2006, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, Oct 12-15, 2006 -
    http://www.warpstock.org

  6. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailinglist/

    Stan Goodman a ecrivait:
    > Yes, I knew that you are using MajorMajor. Thanks for confirming that
    > messages are sent separately as I thought. The only possible explanation
    > then is as you have said, and the reason they would do that is reasonable,
    > though inconvenient for me. I haven't asked them, and I don't know that
    > asking would help -- they are not going to change things for me.


    Lets see... Your ISP offered you email service. You have paid for the
    service. Your ISP has installed a spam filter that improperly rejects
    some of your mailings... Your ISP is in breach of its agreement with
    you. QED

    Cordially,
    RWM


  7. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:06:48 UTC, Robert Murr opined:
    > Stan Goodman a ecrivait:
    > > Yes, I knew that you are using MajorMajor. Thanks for confirming that
    > > messages are sent separately as I thought. The only possible explanation
    > > then is as you have said, and the reason they would do that is reasonable,
    > > though inconvenient for me. I haven't asked them, and I don't know that
    > > asking would help -- they are not going to change things for me.

    >
    > Lets see... Your ISP offered you email service. You have paid for the
    > service. Your ISP has installed a spam filter that improperly rejects
    > some of your mailings... Your ISP is in breach of its agreement with
    > you. QED


    Maybe. I think it isn't so simple, given the deplorable spam/junk mess on
    the 'Net. It isn't hard to accept that a large number of addressees may
    well be spam/junk operation, and the fact is that spam/junk is a plague that
    most people would want to combat. There are often complaints here that this
    or that ISP doesn't take effective steps to deal with the phenomenon; I
    don't know that there is a perfect approach that would satisfy all the
    "obvious" requirements. For all I know at the moment, they might be able to
    lift the limitation on my account if I can convince them that my mailings
    are legitimate.

    I haven't yet asked the hosting service (it isn't my ISP) about the
    limitation, because I am investigating alternate solutions.



  8. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 19:11:49 UTC, "Mark Dodel"
    opined:
    > On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:07:39 UTC, "Stan Goodman"
    > wrote:
    >
    > -> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 00:11:49 UTC, "Mark Dodel"
    > -> opined:
    > -> > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 22:58:00 UTC, "Stan Goodman"
    > -> > wrote:
    > -> >
    > -> > -> I have been using MajorMajor for years to run two mailing lists for my
    > -> > -> extended family. one has seventeen subscribers, and the other ninety-seven.
    > -> > -> The two unique addresses for the two lists are mailboxes on a remote server;
    > -> > -> these two mailboxes are configured identically, as are the two lists in
    > -> > -> MajorMajor. The lists are moderated, so that in practice I am the only one
    > -> > -> that posts to them.
    > -> > ->
    > -> > -> The smaller list continues to operate properly, Articles sent to the mailbox
    > -> > -> of the larger are not distributed; instead, when MM processes them, its
    > -> > -> screen shows the sumbscribers' addresses, each followed by an error message
    > -> > -> saying "Too many addressees". Apparently, the hosting service has placed a
    > -> > -> new limit on the number of addresses.
    > -> > ->
    > -> > -> But this surprises me, as I thought MM sends out each copy individually, so
    > -> > -> that the distribution doesn't look like a mass mailing. And this seems
    > -> > -> confirmed by the fact that all the addresses are listed on the MM screen.
    > -> > -> Was I wrong? Have other users had this experience?
    > -> > ->
    > -> >
    > -> > Stan,
    > -> >
    > -> > The VOICE News list is run off of MajorMajor with Weasel as the mail
    > -> > server running on the VOICE server. We have 665 subscribers and as
    > -> > far as I know each post is sent out separately. Maybe the host mail
    > -> > server is looking at the number of posts with the same subject and
    > -> > complaining because there are so many with the same subject. Perhaps
    > -> > its to identify and block SPAM from being sent. Have you asked them?
    > -> >
    > -> > Mark
    > ->
    > -> Are you using Weasel with your MajorMajor?
    >
    > Yes. I think Ken (the VOICE server admin) is running the latest
    > Weasel.
    >
    > ->
    > -> I wonder if it would make a difference if I would switch to Weasel, so that
    > -> the distributed messages would actually be sent one at a time from my
    > -> machine, rather than one at a time from a mailbox on the hosting service.
    > -> Would their ability to detect the number of addressees still exist?
    > ->
    >
    > I doubt it would make a difference. I thought you were already using
    > a mail server to do this?


    I am using two mailboxes on my hosting account, not a standalone server like
    Weasel. But on further thought, I can see that using Weasel (or something
    similar) would make no difference to such a limitation.

    I may discuss this with the hosting service. Sending through the ISP instead
    of the hosting service is not an option: the ISP has a bad reputation with
    SpamCop-type agencies, and messages sent through it frequently do not arrive
    at their intended destinations.

    > Mark
    >



  9. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:06:48 UTC, Robert Murr opined:
    > Stan Goodman a ecrivait:
    > > Yes, I knew that you are using MajorMajor. Thanks for confirming that
    > > messages are sent separately as I thought. The only possible explanation
    > > then is as you have said, and the reason they would do that is reasonable,
    > > though inconvenient for me. I haven't asked them, and I don't know that
    > > asking would help -- they are not going to change things for me.

    >
    > Lets see... Your ISP offered you email service. You have paid for the
    > service. Your ISP has installed a spam filter that improperly rejects
    > some of your mailings... Your ISP is in breach of its agreement with
    > you. QED
    >
    > Cordially,
    > RWM


    For the interest of any that agree (or disagree) with Robert's analysis,
    here is the text of the reply of the hosting service to my query about the
    limitation:

    *****
    We are sorry that such mail limitation might cause you troubles with mail
    sending. Mail limit was restricted to 25 mails for one SMTP session. This
    change took effect a few days ago and was set on all mail servers.
    Unfortunately this cannot be changed at the present moment until any
    alternative solution is found. We apologize for all possible troubles that
    this might entail. The limit was set in order to make the mail system more
    stable, more efficient and secure in the shared environment.
    *****

    PITA. A result of the arrogance of malicious spammers and junkmailers that
    clog the 'Net with their crap, thus reducing its utility for those who want
    to use it in good faith.

    My fallback will be the list server that they offer as part of the hosting
    package. I just have to learn it now. It could be worse.


  10. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailinglist/

    Stan Goodman wrote:
    > On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:06:48 UTC, Robert Murr opined:
    >> Stan Goodman a ecrivait:
    >>> Yes, I knew that you are using MajorMajor. Thanks for confirming that
    >>> messages are sent separately as I thought. The only possible explanation
    >>> then is as you have said, and the reason they would do that is reasonable,
    >>> though inconvenient for me. I haven't asked them, and I don't know that
    >>> asking would help -- they are not going to change things for me.

    >> Lets see... Your ISP offered you email service. You have paid for the
    >> service. Your ISP has installed a spam filter that improperly rejects
    >> some of your mailings... Your ISP is in breach of its agreement with
    >> you. QED
    >>
    >> Cordially,
    >> RWM

    >
    > For the interest of any that agree (or disagree) with Robert's analysis,
    > here is the text of the reply of the hosting service to my query about the
    > limitation:
    >
    > *****
    > We are sorry that such mail limitation might cause you troubles with mail
    > sending. Mail limit was restricted to 25 mails for one SMTP session. This
    > change took effect a few days ago and was set on all mail servers.
    > Unfortunately this cannot be changed at the present moment until any
    > alternative solution is found. We apologize for all possible troubles that
    > this might entail. The limit was set in order to make the mail system more
    > stable, more efficient and secure in the shared environment.
    > *****
    >
    > PITA. A result of the arrogance of malicious spammers and junkmailers that
    > clog the 'Net with their crap, thus reducing its utility for those who want
    > to use it in good faith.
    >
    > My fallback will be the list server that they offer as part of the hosting
    > package. I just have to learn it now. It could be worse.
    >

    Hi,

    They are begging the question. The situation is unchanged. They are in
    breach. In my experience, in comparable circumstances, patience and
    persistence have been rewarded. Never lose your grasp of the underlying
    reality. You are not a problem that they need to address. You are a
    victim of their ineptitude. The system worked before they fixed it.

    The solution to their operational problems is to discover causes and
    eliminate symptoms without failing to deliver the service that you have
    paid for.

    Also, It seems to me that including a list of subscribers to whom the
    arbitrary limitation should not be applied would be essentially trivial.

    Cordially,
    RWM

  11. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailinglist/

    Stan Goodman wrote:
    > On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:06:48 UTC, Robert Murr opined:
    >> Stan Goodman a ecrivait:
    >>> Yes, I knew that you are using MajorMajor. Thanks for confirming that
    >>> messages are sent separately as I thought. The only possible explanation
    >>> then is as you have said, and the reason they would do that is reasonable,
    >>> though inconvenient for me. I haven't asked them, and I don't know that
    >>> asking would help -- they are not going to change things for me.

    >> Lets see... Your ISP offered you email service. You have paid for the
    >> service. Your ISP has installed a spam filter that improperly rejects
    >> some of your mailings... Your ISP is in breach of its agreement with
    >> you. QED
    >>
    >> Cordially,
    >> RWM

    >
    > For the interest of any that agree (or disagree) with Robert's analysis,
    > here is the text of the reply of the hosting service to my query about the
    > limitation:
    >
    > *****
    > We are sorry that such mail limitation might cause you troubles with mail
    > sending. Mail limit was restricted to 25 mails for one SMTP session. This
    > change took effect a few days ago and was set on all mail servers.
    > Unfortunately this cannot be changed at the present moment until any
    > alternative solution is found. We apologize for all possible troubles that
    > this might entail. The limit was set in order to make the mail system more
    > stable, more efficient and secure in the shared environment.
    > *****
    >
    > PITA. A result of the arrogance of malicious spammers and junkmailers that
    > clog the 'Net with their crap, thus reducing its utility for those who want
    > to use it in good faith.
    >
    > My fallback will be the list server that they offer as part of the hosting
    > package. I just have to learn it now. It could be worse.
    >

    You might offer your ISP 25% of what they have been charging you for
    service, since they have essentially cut you down to about 25% of the
    addresses you need to send to in one e-mail.

    It should be good for a laugh at least!

    Is there a reasonable way for you to cut your address list into four parts?

  12. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 22:37:10 UTC, Robert Murr opined:
    > Stan Goodman wrote:
    > > On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:06:48 UTC, Robert Murr opined:
    > >> Stan Goodman a ecrivait:
    > >>> Yes, I knew that you are using MajorMajor. Thanks for confirming that
    > >>> messages are sent separately as I thought. The only possible explanation
    > >>> then is as you have said, and the reason they would do that is reasonable,
    > >>> though inconvenient for me. I haven't asked them, and I don't know that
    > >>> asking would help -- they are not going to change things for me.


    > >> Lets see... Your ISP offered you email service. You have paid for the
    > >> service. Your ISP has installed a spam filter that improperly rejects
    > >> some of your mailings... Your ISP is in breach of its agreement with
    > >> you. QED
    > >>
    > >> Cordially,
    > >> RWM

    > >
    > > For the interest of any that agree (or disagree) with Robert's analysis,
    > > here is the text of the reply of the hosting service to my query about the
    > > limitation:
    > >
    > > *****
    > > We are sorry that such mail limitation might cause you troubles with mail
    > > sending. Mail limit was restricted to 25 mails for one SMTP session. This
    > > change took effect a few days ago and was set on all mail servers.
    > > Unfortunately this cannot be changed at the present moment until any
    > > alternative solution is found. We apologize for all possible troubles that
    > > this might entail. The limit was set in order to make the mail system more
    > > stable, more efficient and secure in the shared environment.
    > > *****
    > >
    > > PITA. A result of the arrogance of malicious spammers and junkmailers that
    > > clog the 'Net with their crap, thus reducing its utility for those who want
    > > to use it in good faith.
    > >
    > > My fallback will be the list server that they offer as part of the hosting
    > > package. I just have to learn it now. It could be worse.
    > >

    > Hi,
    >
    > They are begging the question. The situation is unchanged. They are in
    > breach. In my experience, in comparable circumstances, patience and
    > persistence have been rewarded. Never lose your grasp of the underlying
    > reality. You are not a problem that they need to address. You are a
    > victim of their ineptitude. The system worked before they fixed it.
    >
    > The solution to their operational problems is to discover causes and
    > eliminate symptoms without failing to deliver the service that you have
    > paid for.
    >
    > Also, It seems to me that including a list of subscribers to whom the
    > arbitrary limitation should not be applied would be essentially trivial.
    >
    > Cordially,
    > RWM


    I think you are oversimplifying. They do have a problem. Yes, they have
    changed the rules of the game (which I have complained about, mostly because
    they do these things unannounced and just wait for customers to trip over
    the change), and yes, I would like them to modify the limitation for each
    subscriber (which I have suggested to them). At the moment, they are mostly
    concerned with suppressing outgoing spam and junk mailings, which I applaud.
    As long as they make it possible for me to send my mailing-list
    distrubutions, even if I have to do some adapting of the way I have been
    working heretofore, I have no interest in telling them how to do it. I am
    confident that, with a little flexibility, I'll be able to continue the
    mailing list. I'm not going to try to supervise how they deal with mailing
    abuses.

  13. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 05:22:56 UTC, Colin Campbell
    opined:
    > Stan Goodman wrote:
    > > On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:06:48 UTC, Robert Murr opined:


    > >> Lets see... Your ISP offered you email service. You have paid for the
    > >> service. Your ISP has installed a spam filter that improperly rejects
    > >> some of your mailings... Your ISP is in breach of its agreement with
    > >> you. QED
    > >>
    > >> Cordially,
    > >> RWM

    > >
    > > For the interest of any that agree (or disagree) with Robert's analysis,
    > > here is the text of the reply of the hosting service to my query about the
    > > limitation:
    > >
    > > *****
    > > We are sorry that such mail limitation might cause you troubles with mail
    > > sending. Mail limit was restricted to 25 mails for one SMTP session. This
    > > change took effect a few days ago and was set on all mail servers.
    > > Unfortunately this cannot be changed at the present moment until any
    > > alternative solution is found. We apologize for all possible troubles that
    > > this might entail. The limit was set in order to make the mail system more
    > > stable, more efficient and secure in the shared environment.
    > > *****
    > >
    > > PITA. A result of the arrogance of malicious spammers and junkmailers that
    > > clog the 'Net with their crap, thus reducing its utility for those who want
    > > to use it in good faith.
    > >
    > > My fallback will be the list server that they offer as part of the hosting
    > > package. I just have to learn it now. It could be worse.
    > >

    > You might offer your ISP 25% of what they have been charging you for
    > service, since they have essentially cut you down to about 25% of the
    > addresses you need to send to in one e-mail.
    >
    > It should be good for a laugh at least!


    Reasons against:

    1) The mailing list is only a small part of what I get in exchange for my
    payment;

    2) Nothing I have seen during my association with these people gives me any
    reason to assume that they have a sense of humor.

    > Is there a reasonable way for you to cut your address list into four parts?


    I thought of that, but I don't like it. Maintaining the two lists is quite
    enough work even as it is; the four sublists would have to have four
    distinct names, which will confuse people. In an exchange of messages with
    the support staff, I found myself getting a bit ugly about the new
    limitation, and even more so about the fact that they spring changes like
    that on the clientele without notice -- they could set up a mailing list
    (newsletter) to make announcements of changes that will affect the way
    people work.

    On top of everything, I really dislike the list manager that they offer.
    From the subscriber's point of view, it works very differently from
    MajorMajor (for example, all the commands to the list manager are embodied
    in the addresses (for each individual command there is a separate
    modification of the base address). The subscribers, nearly all non-technical
    folk, will be flummoxed, and I can't impose a learning curve on them. Right
    now, I don't know what I'm going to do.

  14. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 05:22:56 UTC, Colin Campbell
    opined:
    > Stan Goodman wrote:
    > > On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:06:48 UTC, Robert Murr opined:
    > >> Stan Goodman a ecrivait:
    > >>> Yes, I knew that you are using MajorMajor. Thanks for confirming that
    > >>> messages are sent separately as I thought. The only possible explanation
    > >>> then is as you have said, and the reason they would do that is reasonable,
    > >>> though inconvenient for me. I haven't asked them, and I don't know that
    > >>> asking would help -- they are not going to change things for me.
    > >> Lets see... Your ISP offered you email service. You have paid for the
    > >> service. Your ISP has installed a spam filter that improperly rejects
    > >> some of your mailings... Your ISP is in breach of its agreement with
    > >> you. QED
    > >>
    > >> Cordially,
    > >> RWM

    > >
    > > For the interest of any that agree (or disagree) with Robert's analysis,
    > > here is the text of the reply of the hosting service to my query about the
    > > limitation:
    > >
    > > *****
    > > We are sorry that such mail limitation might cause you troubles with mail
    > > sending. Mail limit was restricted to 25 mails for one SMTP session. This
    > > change took effect a few days ago and was set on all mail servers.
    > > Unfortunately this cannot be changed at the present moment until any
    > > alternative solution is found. We apologize for all possible troubles that
    > > this might entail. The limit was set in order to make the mail system more
    > > stable, more efficient and secure in the shared environment.
    > > *****
    > >
    > > PITA. A result of the arrogance of malicious spammers and junkmailers that
    > > clog the 'Net with their crap, thus reducing its utility for those who want
    > > to use it in good faith.
    > >
    > > My fallback will be the list server that they offer as part of the hosting
    > > package. I just have to learn it now. It could be worse.
    > >

    > You might offer your ISP 25% of what they have been charging you for
    > service, since they have essentially cut you down to about 25% of the
    > addresses you need to send to in one e-mail.
    >
    > It should be good for a laugh at least!
    >
    > Is there a reasonable way for you to cut your address list into four parts?


    I have received an interesting reply from the hosting service. They suggest
    that I write a php script that would avoid the restriction by sending all
    copies of messages to all ~100 subscribers one at a time. In my naivete,
    that's what I thought MajorMajor was using, but apparently they mean to
    initiate entirely seperate SEND operations for each addressee.

    I don't know php, but I bet every serious spammer does, so the restriction
    is totally ineffective against the spammers/junkmailers that they are trying
    to control, while inconveniencing people like me that are simply trying to
    use the service for legal and innocent purposes. I would not be surprised to
    learn that such scripts are available readymade on the 'Net, if one knows
    where to look.

    While I was writing the paragraph above, another note came in from them,
    pointing me to a sample script that would do exactly what they suggest:
    <http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...m/codex.php%3F
    id%3D1136%26single%3D1+php+mass+mail+script+exampl e&hl=ru&gl=ua&ct=clnk&cd=2
    >. In other words, they have restricted use of the service, and told me that

    the restriction is meaningless.

    The support people are in Ukraina, but the servers themselves are in
    Kentucky somewhere. Between Ukrainian vodka and Kentucky moonshine, I think
    they are running on very high-grade fuel.


  15. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 19:57:15 UTC, "Stan Goodman"
    wrote:

    > > Is there a reasonable way for you to cut your address list into four parts?

    >
    > I have received an interesting reply from the hosting service. They suggest
    > that I write a php script that would avoid the restriction by sending all
    > copies of messages to all ~100 subscribers one at a time. In my naivete,
    > that's what I thought MajorMajor was using, but apparently they mean to
    > initiate entirely seperate SEND operations for each addressee.


    I can suggest a solution, I think. This uses my lightweight mail server
    and client. It involves a small REXX script.

    Set up my lightweight mail server on your machine (takes less than 10
    minutes). Get MajorMajor to send all of its mail to that. All the server
    does is store it.

    Have a REXX script that executes (say) every five minutes. It enumerates
    the files in the send directory, and picks a number [1] of names. It
    feeds that to my lightweight SMTP client (just a short command) which
    then sends those files in a single SMTP session.

    [1] number chosen at will, but obviously less than 25.


  16. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:24:55 UTC, "Bob Eager" opined:
    > On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 19:57:15 UTC, "Stan Goodman"
    > wrote:
    >
    > > > Is there a reasonable way for you to cut your address list into four parts?

    > >
    > > I have received an interesting reply from the hosting service. They suggest
    > > that I write a php script that would avoid the restriction by sending all
    > > copies of messages to all ~100 subscribers one at a time. In my naivete,
    > > that's what I thought MajorMajor was using, but apparently they mean to
    > > initiate entirely seperate SEND operations for each addressee.

    >
    > I can suggest a solution, I think. This uses my lightweight mail server
    > and client. It involves a small REXX script.
    >
    > Set up my lightweight mail server on your machine (takes less than 10
    > minutes). Get MajorMajor to send all of its mail to that. All the server
    > does is store it.
    >
    > Have a REXX script that executes (say) every five minutes. It enumerates
    > the files in the send directory, and picks a number [1] of names. It
    > feeds that to my lightweight SMTP client (just a short command) which
    > then sends those files in a single SMTP session.


    This sounds good!! I like it. I'll set about that tomorrow, and see how it
    goes. Thanks.


  17. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On 08 Jan 2007 11:02:27 GMT, Stan Goodman wrote:

    > now, I don't know what I'm going to do.


    Stan, I run a small mailing list through yahoogroups.com and am entirely
    satisfied with what I've gotten from them. It costs nothing other than
    the permitting of small text-only ads at the bottom of the messages.

    --
    The "mypacks.net" address from which this message was sent is
    legitimate and not spam-trapped. It is, however, disposable.

  18. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:12:03 UTC, Michael DeBusk
    opined:
    > On 08 Jan 2007 11:02:27 GMT, Stan Goodman wrote:
    >
    > > now, I don't know what I'm going to do.

    >
    > Stan, I run a small mailing list through yahoogroups.com and am entirely
    > satisfied with what I've gotten from them. It costs nothing other than
    > the permitting of small text-only ads at the bottom of the messages.


    Thanks, but I don't want ads at the bottom of anything, certainly if I have
    no control over what they are advertising for. I'm going to try Bob's
    suggestion, which sounds about as close to ideal as one could hope for,
    barring the elimination of the stupid limitation.


  19. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On 09 Jan 2007 14:53:36 GMT, Stan Goodman wrote:

    > Thanks, but I don't want ads at the bottom of anything, certainly if
    > I have no control over what they are advertising for.


    I tend to count on the fact that most people ignore ads anyway.

    > I'm going to try Bob's suggestion, which sounds about as close to
    > ideal as one could hope for, barring the elimination of the stupid
    > limitation.


    It does sound like a good plan, as long as your ISP has no problem with
    you running a server on your machine while hooked to them. (It violates
    the ToS with some ISPs.)

    --
    The "mypacks.net" address from which this message was sent is
    legitimate and not spam-trapped. It is, however, disposable.

  20. Re: Limitation on the number of subscribers to a MajorMajor mailing list/

    On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 19:46:34 UTC, Michael DeBusk
    wrote:

    > It does sound like a good plan, as long as your ISP has no problem with
    > you running a server on your machine while hooked to them. (It violates
    > the ToS with some ISPs.)


    He can always block port 25 on his router, and they'll never see it.

    More pragmatuically, that server allows one to specify trusted IPs, and
    it won't accept connections from any others. So they'll see a
    'connection refused' anyway.




+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast