Vista Tutorial - Temporary Failure message!

On Aug 5, 6:03 pm, "Gary VanderMolen" <g...@NoMail.invalid> wrote:
> Don't take "hisname.com" literally. It seemed pretty obvious
> the OP was intent on keeping the recipient's name private.
>
> Good analysis, though. Anyone who know how to look up and interpret
> domain MX records obviously knows his business.
>
> Gary VanderMolen
>
> "Lanscomm" <Lanscomm.2uv...@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in messagenews:Lanscomm.2uv902@no-mx.forums.net...
>
> > HISNAME.COM
> > The Domain Name owned by Johnny Holland from Maryland has NO MX Records
> > defined and therefore CANNOT receive any email. He will have to define
> > at least one *MX* Type record in his DNS Server to receive email and
> > also have a compatible email server. Of course this may be the work of
> > his arch nemesis, Luther !!! (Sorry, couldn't resist as an agnostic !!)
>
> > NSLOOKUP -TYPE=MX HISNAME.COM
> > Server: dns-cac-lb-01.orange.rr.com
> > Address: 66.75.164.90:53
>
> > hisname.com
> > primary name server = ns1.fastpark.net
> > responsible mail addr = HOSTMASTER.fastpark.net
> > serial = 2005091502
> > refresh = 86400 (1 day)
> > retry = 1800 (30 mins)
> > expire = 604800 (7 days)
> > default TTL = 86400 (1 day)
>
> > My Domain is SPUBOL.com and I have provided the DNS Lookup records
> > indicating a properly defined MX Record Structure.
>
> > My email is ed...@SPUBOL.com (Notice the MX Records in the middle)
>
> > C:\Windows\system32>nslookup -type=MX SPUBOL.com
> > Server: dns-cac-lb-01.orange.rr.com
> > Address: 66.75.164.90:53
>
> > Non-authoritative answer:
> > SPUBOL.com *MX* preference = 0, mail exchanger =
> > smtp.secureserver.net
> > SPUBOL.com *MX* preference = 10, mail exchanger =
> > mailstore1.secureserver.net
>
> > SPUBOL.com nameserver = PARK3.secureserver.net
> > SPUBOL.com nameserver = PARK4.secureserver.net
> > mailstore1.secureserver.net internet address = 64.202.166.11
> > PARK3.secureserver.net internet address = 64.202.165.109
> > PARK4.secureserver.net internet address = 208.109.80.53
>
> > Quote: George Bush is Proof That God Does Not Exist !!
>
> > --
> > Lanscomm




Okay....so you feel pretty sure that it really is something wrong with
his system...and not that I've been excluded from his email lists? If
I'm understanding you correctly, that would return a PERMANENT FAILURE
unless he had gone in and specifically rigged a TEMPORARY FAILURE to
respond? and Lanscomm? You lost me after you started talking about
MX records! Sorry, I wish I did know more! Then I might not have to
bother you guys! =) You guys have been great!

me

On Aug 5, 6:03 pm, "Gary VanderMolen" <g...@NoMail.invalid> wrote:
> Don't take "hisname.com" literally. It seemed pretty obvious
> the OP was intent on keeping the recipient's name private.
>
> Good analysis, though. Anyone who know how to look up and interpret
> domain MX records obviously knows his business.
>
> Gary VanderMolen
>
> "Lanscomm" <Lanscomm.2uv...@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in messagenews:Lanscomm.2uv902@no-mx.forums.net...
>
> > HISNAME.COM
> > The Domain Name owned by Johnny Holland from Maryland has NO MX Records
> > defined and therefore CANNOT receive any email. He will have to define
> > at least one *MX* Type record in his DNS Server to receive email and
> > also have a compatible email server. Of course this may be the work of
> > his arch nemesis, Luther !!! (Sorry, couldn't resist as an agnostic !!)
>
> > NSLOOKUP -TYPE=MX HISNAME.COM
> > Server: dns-cac-lb-01.orange.rr.com
> > Address: 66.75.164.90:53
>
> > hisname.com
> > primary name server = ns1.fastpark.net
> > responsible mail addr = HOSTMASTER.fastpark.net
> > serial = 2005091502
> > refresh = 86400 (1 day)
> > retry = 1800 (30 mins)
> > expire = 604800 (7 days)
> > default TTL = 86400 (1 day)
>
> > My Domain is SPUBOL.com and I have provided the DNS Lookup records
> > indicating a properly defined MX Record Structure.
>
> > My email is ed...@SPUBOL.com (Notice the MX Records in the middle)
>
> > C:\Windows\system32>nslookup -type=MX SPUBOL.com
> > Server: dns-cac-lb-01.orange.rr.com
> > Address: 66.75.164.90:53
>
> > Non-authoritative answer:
> > SPUBOL.com *MX* preference = 0, mail exchanger =
> > smtp.secureserver.net
> > SPUBOL.com *MX* preference = 10, mail exchanger =
> > mailstore1.secureserver.net
>
> > SPUBOL.com nameserver = PARK3.secureserver.net
> > SPUBOL.com nameserver = PARK4.secureserver.net
> > mailstore1.secureserver.net internet address = 64.202.166.11
> > PARK3.secureserver.net internet address = 64.202.165.109
> > PARK4.secureserver.net internet address = 208.109.80.53
>
> > Quote: George Bush is Proof That God Does Not Exist !!
>
> > --
> > Lanscomm




Okay....so you feel pretty sure that it really is something wrong with
his system...and not that I've been excluded from his email lists? If
I'm understanding you correctly, that would return a PERMANENT FAILURE
unless he had gone in and specifically rigged a TEMPORARY FAILURE to
respond? and Lanscomm? You lost me after you started talking about
MX records! Sorry, I wish I did know more! Then I might not have to
bother you guys! =) You guys have been great!

me

Sage Advice Gary !!! Sage Advice !!!

You must be "Digitally Clairvoyant" in order to KNOW precisely what each poster means by his/her text. That is quite a supernatural power, far better than the Amazing Kreskin! And he was only good for envelopes! Oh wait, that may have been Johnny, God rest his soul!

I have read your past four replies to this post and for the life of me, I cannot find one iota of worthwhile input! What is OBVIOUS to me is that you include plenty of innuendo, false knowledge, ludicrous determinations, gossip, technobabble, bull****, (is that allowed here?)..... etc., etc., etc.

Why did you feel you had to reply to my post? You have added nothing and only illuminated your lack of network knowledge. Determining a domain owner, and looking up an MX Record is networking 001 !!! My 10 year old nephews can do that and much more. And actually tell you what they mean and how they work. You have stated that you can't even determine what the DNS settings are for the domain. Yet my 10 year old nephews can determine every MX, CName, A, FTP, HTTP, SMTP, etc., protocol value for any server in the world.

Did you mean to imply that ALL people could not know the DNS values simply because "you" don't know how to access them?

So I ask, with all due respect, why are you replying with nothing in fact or truth to add to any issue? Plenty of technical folklore and urban legend and mindless repetition, but nothing that would hold up to my 10 year old nephews.

I am sorry that I have to end my association with this forum. I can't keep up with the emails I keep receiving every time you have nothing of value to say or type.

I seriously think you should take up heavy beer drinking so one hand is always busy and you can't type !!! It would benefit many posters on this forum.

And if you do continue on ad nausea at least don't click the "Quote message in reply" button !!!

I think the readers of this forum can remember the previous 8 milliseconds of content from above.....

Eddie Miller

<marilyn.g.rowe@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1186359829.483928.294510@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Okay....so you feel pretty sure that it really is something wrong with
> his system...and not that I've been excluded from his email lists? If
> I'm understanding you correctly, that would return a PERMANENT FAILURE
> unless he had gone in and specifically rigged a TEMPORARY FAILURE to
> respond?

If his intent was to bounce your emails, I'm pretty sure he would have
made it look like a permanent failure. Rigging a temporary failure is
more difficult, and would not be advantageous in any way.
--
Gary VanderMolen

On Aug 5, 10:53 pm, "Gary VanderMolen" <g...@NoMail.invalid> wrote:
> <marilyn.g.r...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1186359829.483928.294510@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > Okay....so you feel pretty sure that it really is something wrong with
> > his system...and not that I've been excluded from his email lists? If
> > I'm understanding you correctly, that would return a PERMANENT FAILURE
> > unless he had gone in and specifically rigged a TEMPORARY FAILURE to
> > respond?
>
> If his intent was to bounce your emails, I'm pretty sure he would have
> made it look like a permanent failure. Rigging a temporary failure is
> more difficult, and would not be advantageous in any way.
> --
> Gary VanderMolen

Thanks Gary! You've been precious! I wish I knew as much as you do
about how all of this works, but don't give up on me! I'm not dead
yet! ha! and thanks for making me feel better about all of this!
Have a great week!

me

On Aug 5, 10:53 pm, "Gary VanderMolen" <g...@NoMail.invalid> wrote:
> <marilyn.g.r...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1186359829.483928.294510@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > Okay....so you feel pretty sure that it really is something wrong with
> > his system...and not that I've been excluded from his email lists? If
> > I'm understanding you correctly, that would return a PERMANENT FAILURE
> > unless he had gone in and specifically rigged a TEMPORARY FAILURE to
> > respond?
>
> If his intent was to bounce your emails, I'm pretty sure he would have
> made it look like a permanent failure. Rigging a temporary failure is
> more difficult, and would not be advantageous in any way.
> --
> Gary VanderMolen

Gary,
Did you get my thank you? I think it got deleted by mistake! I
really do want to thank you for helping to answer my question about
TFM and for making me feel a little better in the process! You were
great!
me

<marilyn.g.rowe@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1186463162.610217.242230@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Gary,
> Did you get my thank you? I think it got deleted by mistake! I
> really do want to thank you for helping to answer my question about
> TFM and for making me feel a little better in the process! You were
> great!
> me

Thanks for the kudos, Marilyn. You're quite welcome.
--
Gary VanderMolen