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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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
>

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.