I know this is way outside the DIY remit and should be posted to HiFi
dot something but I after sensible replies rather than baffling
technospeak. Thus, your indulgence is craved.


My aged father is proposing to celebrate (sic) surviving the recent
fitting of his pacemaker by the purchase of a DVD recorder. Neither he
nor I have any understanding of the pros, cons and meaning of all the
plus and minus stuff when it comes to choosing these beasts.

Can anyone shed any light on how to choose a DVD recorder? Does it
matter if it will record in only one of the + - formats??? Should he
simply buy Richer Sounds' latest best buy????

Thank you

Richard



--
Real email address is RJSavage at BIGFOOT dot COM

The information contained in this post
may not be published in, or used by

http://www.diyprojects.info

Richard wrote:

Can anyone shed any light on how to choose a DVD recorder? Does it
matter if it will record in only one of the + - formats??? Should he
simply buy Richer Sounds' latest best buy????

Thank you

Richard


I have a Panasonic DVD-R that I bought about 18 months ago. It works very
well. It is well worth shelling out for one with a harddisk if at all
possible. Most stuff you can record to that, and then transfer it when you
know you want to keep it.

The only problem I have had is with cheap disks. As long as you buy good
disks (TDK etc) you will be fine.

In reality, I don't think it really makes much difference whether you get
DVD-R or DVD+R.

This is a good place to start:

http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html




--
Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first
prize in the lottery of life" -Cecil Rhodes

"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the
great and enduring alliances of modern times."
George W Bush -Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 18, 2002

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
stones. Psalms 137:9.

Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.
Malachi 2:3.

"He who rises up to kill us, we will pre-empt it and kill him first,"
- Ariel Sharon 8th May 2002

Can anyone shed any light on how to choose a DVD recorder? Does it matter
if it will record in only one of the + - formats??? Should he simply buy
Richer Sounds' latest best buy????

There's a bunch of DVD background here :
http://www.videohelp.com/dvd
May help you choose, but you probably need to forget formats go for ease of
use.
Go to one of the sheds and get a demo then buy cheap off the internet.
Rgds

"Richard" wrote in message
...
I know this is way outside the DIY remit and should be posted to HiFi
dot something but I after sensible replies rather than baffling
technospeak. Thus, your indulgence is craved.


My aged father is proposing to celebrate (sic) surviving the recent
fitting of his pacemaker by the purchase of a DVD recorder. Neither he
nor I have any understanding of the pros, cons and meaning of all the
plus and minus stuff when it comes to choosing these beasts.

Can anyone shed any light on how to choose a DVD recorder? Does it
matter if it will record in only one of the + - formats??? Should he
simply buy Richer Sounds' latest best buy????


Format doesn't really matter but buy one with a hard disc and then it really
doesn't matter. If you can get one that handles analogue and digital
transmissions so that you don't need to buy it it's own STB when the
analogue turn-off happens.

"Mike" wrote in
:


Format doesn't really matter but buy one with a hard disc and then it
really doesn't matter.

Absolutely - the convenience of a hard disc is amazing; just press a
button to record, no finding a disc, etc.

I've got a 250Mb; I do a lot of timeshifting, but that's turned out to be
an overkill, figure 1 hour to 5 Mb at standard (excellent) quality, 4
times that at better than VHS quality.

You can start watching something before you've finished recording it, or
watch something while you're recording something else.

They will all also record to DVD disc, so you can archive, or use re -
recordable (RW) discs for further storage if your hard drive is filling
up.

A CD(R) is recordable on; A CD(RW) can also be erased and used again and
again like a VHS

As for +R(W) and -R(W): -RW is later and better, but +RW will do fine for
home recording, and will play on just about every sort of DVD.

If you can get one that handles analogue and
digital transmissions so that you don't need to buy it it's own STB
when the analogue turn-off happens.


I personally wouldn't get a digital ready one yet, IMO digital TV isn't
ready for prime time yet, and for most of us the box will need replacing
anyhow before the switchoff. In the meantime a 40 quid STB will do the
job

HTH

mike

"mike ring" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Mike" wrote in
:


Format doesn't really matter but buy one with a hard disc and then it
really doesn't matter.

Absolutely - the convenience of a hard disc is amazing; just press a
button to record, no finding a disc, etc.

I've got a 250Mb; I do a lot of timeshifting, but that's turned out to be
an overkill, figure 1 hour to 5 Mb at standard (excellent) quality, 4
times that at better than VHS quality.

What make/model/price? Less than £300?

mike ring wrote:
"Mike" wrote in
:


Format doesn't really matter but buy one with a hard disc and then
it
really doesn't matter.

Absolutely - the convenience of a hard disc is amazing; just press a
button to record, no finding a disc, etc.

I've got a 250Mb; I do a lot of timeshifting, but that's turned out
to be
an overkill, figure 1 hour to 5 Mb at standard (excellent) quality, 4

times that at better than VHS quality.

Patent it and you could make a fortune with that kind of compression
giving that kind of quality.

MBQ

(I think you mean Gb)

"Grumps" wrote in
:


I've got a 250Mb; I do a lot of timeshifting, but that's turned out
to be an overkill, figure 1 hour to 5 Mb at standard (excellent)
quality, 4 times that at better than VHS quality.

What make/model/price? Less than £300?


Oh dear me no, not 250 Gbytes.

But good 80gig ones are sub 300 now, and I wouldn't be frightened as I was
before personal experience of using long play - it's far better than VHS or
TV itswelf now the authorities are crushing bandwidth.

mike

wrote in news:1111061939.299444.152570
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

, figure 1 hour to 5 Mb at standard (excellent) quality, 4

times that at better than VHS quality.


Patent it and you could make a fortune with that kind of compression
giving that kind of quality.

MBQ

(I think you mean Gb)



Whoops

mike

"mike ring" wrote in message
. 1.4...
If you can get one that handles analogue and
digital transmissions so that you don't need to buy it it's own STB
when the analogue turn-off happens.

I personally wouldn't get a digital ready one yet, IMO digital TV isn't
ready for prime time yet, and for most of us the box will need replacing
anyhow before the switchoff. In the meantime a 40 quid STB will do the
job

I think it depends where you are. We cannot even get digital here yet but
in some places analogue already has a turn-off date.

"Mike" wrote in
:

"mike ring" wrote in message
. 1.4...

I personally wouldn't get a digital ready one yet, IMO digital TV
isn't ready for prime time yet, and for most of us the box will need
replacing anyhow before the switchoff. In the meantime a 40 quid STB
will do the job

I think it depends where you are. We cannot even get digital here yet
but in some places analogue already has a turn-off date.


Yes, starting in 2008, but for most 2010

http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/...d.php?t=191360

The system is in such a state, software downloads, EPGs not fixed yet, etc,
that I wouldn't invest much in it at the moment,

mike

In message , Richard
writes
I know this is way outside the DIY remit and should be posted to HiFi
dot something but I after sensible replies rather than baffling
technospeak. Thus, your indulgence is craved.


My aged father is proposing to celebrate (sic) surviving the recent
fitting of his pacemaker by the purchase of a DVD recorder. Neither he
nor I have any understanding of the pros, cons and meaning of all the
plus and minus stuff when it comes to choosing these beasts.

Can anyone shed any light on how to choose a DVD recorder? Does it
matter if it will record in only one of the + - formats??? Should he
simply buy Richer Sounds' latest best buy????

I would strongly recommend an HD/DVD recorder if finances stretch to a
bit over £300

You can watch and then delete, you have delayed playback (i.e. you can
pause and then watch e.g. 5 minutes behind transmission time in the
event of an interruption, you can write similar programs (e.g nature or
comedy programs to a particular disk), you can edit - they are much more
flexible

I have a Toshiba RD-X32SB and it does the job, I'm quite pleased with it

--
geoff

"Alec" wrote in message
...
Can anyone shed any light on how to choose a DVD recorder? Does
it matter
if it will record in only one of the + - formats??? Should he
simply buy
Richer Sounds' latest best buy????

There's a bunch of DVD background here :
http://www.videohelp.com/dvd
May help you choose, but you probably need to forget formats go for
ease of
use.
Go to one of the sheds and get a demo then buy cheap off the
internet.
Rgds

And what are the morons like you going to do once you force all the
retail outlets out of business?

BTW, you return email address better exist (and one that you 'own'),
otherwise you are liable to a valid abuse report, either use a valid
return address or use a invalid one, not something that could
exist....

In message , ":::Jerry::::"
writes
Go to one of the sheds and get a demo then buy cheap off the
internet.
Rgds

And what are the morons like you going to do once you force all the
retail outlets out of business?

BTW, you return email address better exist (and one that you 'own'),
otherwise you are liable to a valid abuse report, either use a valid
return address or use a invalid one, not something that could
exist....

I'm not sure I'm with you on that

What do you mean ?

--
geoff

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , ":::Jerry::::"
writes
Go to one of the sheds and get a demo then buy cheap off the
internet.
Rgds

And what are the morons like you going to do once you force all the
retail outlets out of business?

BTW, you return email address better exist (and one that you
'own'),
otherwise you are liable to a valid abuse report, either use a
valid
return address or use a invalid one, not something that could
exist....

I'm not sure I'm with you on that

What do you mean ?


"Alec" uses as his return address, the
point I'm making is that 'doesnotexist.demon.co.uk could well be a
valid email / domain address, who do you think will get the spam sent
to Alec's quoted return address ? Also, if the address *doesn't*
exist, as the address could be real email servers are not going to
just dump any mail, they are going to attempt to deliver it for how
ever long they have been set up to do so - thus using up sever
resources etc.

As I said, either use a valid address (but one that has been set up to
delete upon delivery) or use the accepted word 'invalid' as the domain
etc., i.e. lid - AIUI almost all severs are set
up to reject an address that contains the word invalid.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:18:06 UTC, ":::Jerry::::" wrote:

"Alec" uses as his return address, the
point I'm making is that 'doesnotexist.demon.co.uk could well be a
valid email / domain address, who do you think will get the spam sent
to Alec's quoted return address ?

Fair point. Unless, of course, Demon have provided that address for
customers' use. Are you sure they haven't?

Also, if the address *doesn't*
exist, as the address could be real email servers are not going to
just dump any mail, they are going to attempt to deliver it for how
ever long they have been set up to do so - thus using up sever
resources etc.

No...if the DNS lookup fails, they'll throw it straight back.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

In article ,
Mike wrote:
I personally wouldn't get a digital ready one yet, IMO digital TV
isn't ready for prime time yet, and for most of us the box will need
replacing anyhow before the switchoff. In the meantime a 40 quid STB
will do the job

I think it depends where you are. We cannot even get digital here yet
but in some places analogue already has a turn-off date.

They'll be using higher power for digital as and when analogue gets turned
off. So if you already get a reasonable analogue signal it should be
tickity boo in digital.

--
*Generally speaking, you aren't learning much if your lips are moving.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:18:06 UTC, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

"Alec" uses as his return address,
the
point I'm making is that 'doesnotexist.demon.co.uk could well be a
valid email / domain address, who do you think will get the spam
sent
to Alec's quoted return address ?

Fair point. Unless, of course, Demon have provided that address for
customers' use. Are you sure they haven't?

Well that fails back on the 'valid but dumps' comment I made.


Also, if the address *doesn't*
exist, as the address could be real email servers are not going to
just dump any mail, they are going to attempt to deliver it for
how
ever long they have been set up to do so - thus using up sever
resources etc.

No...if the DNS lookup fails, they'll throw it straight back.


To were, and from who? I've had mail returned several days after
sending, in the return info it stated that the (my) server had
attempted 'x' times to deliver but each attempt has failed - IOW the
receiving server throws it back to the sending server true, but then
what happens if the sending server has been set up to try again 'x'
times before it returns it to the originator....

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike wrote:
snip

I think it depends where you are. We cannot even get digital here
yet
but in some places analogue already has a turn-off date.

They'll be using higher power for digital as and when analogue gets
turned
off. So if you already get a reasonable analogue signal it should be
tickity boo in digital.


How will that effect those on the South Coast, were TX power is
limited due to the problem of co-channel interference with French
stations, surely any increase in TX power will only make that problem
worse, or will this co-channel interference problem stop with a full
digital service ?

Perhaps this sub thread needs (cross) posting to the uk.tech.broadcast
:~)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:07:40 UTC, ":::Jerry::::" wrote:

To were, and from who? I've had mail returned several days after
sending, in the return info it stated that the (my) server had
attempted 'x' times to deliver but each attempt has failed - IOW the
receiving server throws it back to the sending server true, but then
what happens if the sending server has been set up to try again 'x'
times before it returns it to the originator....

A sending server that fails to find an MX record (because the name
doesn't exist) will generally throw it back straight away. This is
different to the case where there *is* an MX record (i.e. the name is
valid) but there is no mail server actually running.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

In article ,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
They'll be using higher power for digital as and when analogue gets
turned
off. So if you already get a reasonable analogue signal it should be
tickity boo in digital.


How will that effect those on the South Coast, were TX power is
limited due to the problem of co-channel interference with French
stations, surely any increase in TX power will only make that problem
worse, or will this co-channel interference problem stop with a full
digital service ?

Co-channel interference depends on the channels used. And digital *should*
be more robust to modest levels of interference that are obvious on
analogue.

--
*When did my wild oats turn to prunes and all bran?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
To were, and from who? I've had mail returned several days after
sending, in the return info it stated that the (my) server had
attempted 'x' times to deliver but each attempt has failed - IOW the
receiving server throws it back to the sending server true, but then
what happens if the sending server has been set up to try again 'x'
times before it returns it to the originator....

A sending server that fails to find an MX record (because the name
doesn't exist) will generally throw it back straight away. This is
different to the case where there *is* an MX record (i.e. the name is
valid) but there is no mail server actually running.

Yes. I've registered . but there is no mail server
facilities set up. So anything sent there simply bounces. Only costs a few
quid a year, and has cut my spam to near zero. Of course it could be my
ISP has decent filtering set up as well - I've had zero viruses or worms
in about a year. As opposed to with Argonet (and my real address) where
there were sometimes hundreds *a day*.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:07:40 UTC, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

To were, and from who? I've had mail returned several days after
sending, in the return info it stated that the (my) server had
attempted 'x' times to deliver but each attempt has failed - IOW
the
receiving server throws it back to the sending server true, but
then
what happens if the sending server has been set up to try again
'x'
times before it returns it to the originator....

A sending server that fails to find an MX record (because the name
doesn't exist) will generally throw it back straight away. This is
different to the case where there *is* an MX record (i.e. the name
is
valid) but there is no mail server actually running.


Did you bother to read what I said before repeating yourself ?....

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
They'll be using higher power for digital as and when analogue
gets
turned
off. So if you already get a reasonable analogue signal it
should be
tickity boo in digital.


How will that effect those on the South Coast, were TX power is
limited due to the problem of co-channel interference with French
stations, surely any increase in TX power will only make that
problem
worse, or will this co-channel interference problem stop with a
full
digital service ?

Co-channel interference depends on the channels used. And digital
*should*
be more robust to modest levels of interference that are obvious on
analogue.


So explain why most of the effected transmitters are going to be the
last to be switched off, surely if the problems are going to be
reduced by the digital service then they would be amongst the first
inline for the switch over ?

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:27:12 UTC, ":::Jerry::::" wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:07:40 UTC, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

To were, and from who? I've had mail returned several days after
sending, in the return info it stated that the (my) server had
attempted 'x' times to deliver but each attempt has failed - IOW
the
receiving server throws it back to the sending server true, but
then
what happens if the sending server has been set up to try again
'x'
times before it returns it to the originator....

A sending server that fails to find an MX record (because the name
doesn't exist) will generally throw it back straight away. This is
different to the case where there *is* an MX record (i.e. the name
is
valid) but there is no mail server actually running.


Did you bother to read what I said before repeating yourself ?....

Well, you obviously didn't...the differences are lost on you.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:59:06 UTC, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
To were, and from who? I've had mail returned several days after
sending, in the return info it stated that the (my) server had
attempted 'x' times to deliver but each attempt has failed - IOW the
receiving server throws it back to the sending server true, but then
what happens if the sending server has been set up to try again 'x'
times before it returns it to the originator....

A sending server that fails to find an MX record (because the name
doesn't exist) will generally throw it back straight away. This is
different to the case where there *is* an MX record (i.e. the name is
valid) but there is no mail server actually running.

Yes. I've registered . but there is no mail server
facilities set up. So anything sent there simply bounces. Only costs a few
quid a year, and has cut my spam to near zero. Of course it could be my
ISP has decent filtering set up as well - I've had zero viruses or worms
in about a year. As opposed to with Argonet (and my real address) where
there were sometimes hundreds *a day*.

I could do that (since I have a few spare domains and I run DNS and mail
servers for them all). However, the Spamcop address is cheap, provides
excellent filtering and allows people to reply!

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:27:12 UTC, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:07:40 UTC, ":::Jerry::::"

wrote:

To were, and from who? I've had mail returned several days
after
sending, in the return info it stated that the (my) server had
attempted 'x' times to deliver but each attempt has failed -
IOW
the
receiving server throws it back to the sending server true,
but
then
what happens if the sending server has been set up to try
again
'x'
times before it returns it to the originator....

A sending server that fails to find an MX record (because the
name
doesn't exist) will generally throw it back straight away. This
is
different to the case where there *is* an MX record (i.e. the
name
is
valid) but there is no mail server actually running.


Did you bother to read what I said before repeating yourself ?....

Well, you obviously didn't...the differences are lost on you.


So do explain why mail can be returned to the sender up to a week
after the mail was sent to a invalid and non existent address......

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:31:32 UTC, ":::Jerry::::" wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:27:12 UTC, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:07:40 UTC, ":::Jerry::::"

wrote:

To were, and from who? I've had mail returned several days
after
sending, in the return info it stated that the (my) server had
attempted 'x' times to deliver but each attempt has failed -
IOW
the
receiving server throws it back to the sending server true,
but
then
what happens if the sending server has been set up to try
again
'x'
times before it returns it to the originator....

A sending server that fails to find an MX record (because the
name
doesn't exist) will generally throw it back straight away. This
is
different to the case where there *is* an MX record (i.e. the
name
is
valid) but there is no mail server actually running.


Did you bother to read what I said before repeating yourself ?....

Well, you obviously didn't...the differences are lost on you.


So do explain why mail can be returned to the sender up to a week
after the mail was sent to a invalid and non existent address......

I've explained the difference; you clearly cannot comprehend. I won't
waste my time.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:31:32 UTC, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

snip

So do explain why mail can be returned to the sender up to a week
after the mail was sent to a invalid and non existent
address......

I've explained the difference; you clearly cannot comprehend. I
won't
waste my time.


More likely you can't....

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:48:08 UTC, ":::Jerry::::" wrote:

I've explained the difference; you clearly cannot comprehend. I
won't
waste my time.

More likely you can't....

Tell that to the 314 people I just taught it to...they understood fine.

--
Bob Eager

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:48:08 UTC, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

I've explained the difference; you clearly cannot comprehend. I
won't
waste my time.

More likely you can't....

Tell that to the 314 people I just taught it to...they understood
fine.


So you say....

No to answer my question if you can....bearing in mind the cleavat you
placed in your original remarks....

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
And digital *should*
be more robust to modest levels of interference that are obvious on
analogue.


In somebody's dreams. Analogue signals are much more robust than
digital. The detection signal strength of an analogue radio sound signal
for understandable reception is IME almost x10 that of a digital
signal! Try measuring the speed of a 2.4GHz network to see how prone to
interference digital becomes throughout a day!

Regards
Capitol

In message , ":::Jerry::::"
writes

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , ":::Jerry::::"
writes
Go to one of the sheds and get a demo then buy cheap off the
internet.
Rgds

And what are the morons like you going to do once you force all the
retail outlets out of business?

BTW, you return email address better exist (and one that you
'own'),
otherwise you are liable to a valid abuse report, either use a
valid
return address or use a invalid one, not something that could
exist....

I'm not sure I'm with you on that

What do you mean ?


"Alec" uses as his return address, the
point I'm making is that 'doesnotexist.demon.co.uk could well be a
valid email / domain address, who do you think will get the spam sent
to Alec's quoted return address ? Also, if the address *doesn't*
exist, as the address could be real email servers are not going to
just dump any mail, they are going to attempt to deliver it for how
ever long they have been set up to do so - thus using up sever
resources etc.

As I said, either use a valid address (but one that has been set up to
delete upon delivery) or use the accepted word 'invalid' as the domain
etc., i.e. lid - AIUI almost all severs are set
up to reject an address that contains the word invalid.

OK, with you, but, if not a valid email addy, then he's not really
breaking any rules, just acting stupidly

--
geoff

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
They'll be using higher power for digital as and when analogue
gets
turned
off. So if you already get a reasonable analogue signal it
should be
tickity boo in digital.


How will that effect those on the South Coast, were TX power is
limited due to the problem of co-channel interference with French
stations, surely any increase in TX power will only make that
problem
worse, or will this co-channel interference problem stop with a
full
digital service ?

Co-channel interference depends on the channels used. And digital
*should*
be more robust to modest levels of interference that are obvious on
analogue.


So explain why most of the effected transmitters are going to be the
last to be switched off, surely if the problems are going to be
reduced by the digital service then they would be amongst the first
inline for the switch over ?

Because although those in Kent will get an improved service, those watching
in analogue in France most definitely won't - whereas now they get faint
background interference a digital signal will splat the whole signal.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
And digital *should*
be more robust to modest levels of interference that are obvious on
analogue.


In somebody's dreams. Analogue signals are much more robust than
digital. The detection signal strength of an analogue radio sound signal
for understandable reception is IME almost x10 that of a digital
signal!

That rather depends on the system used but for analogue versus digital
television you are correct as the modulation scheme is really only suitable
for stuffing bits down a piece of wire with little crosstalk (and even then
there are cheaper better options).

But if you remember the old analogue mobile phone system you'll see the
digital system is far more robust. In fact the CDMA modulation schemes used
in 3G are about as near as one can get to the physical limits of a channel.

"Mike" wrote in message
...
snip

Because although those in Kent will get an improved service, those
watching
in analogue in France most definitely won't - whereas now they get
faint
background interference a digital signal will splat the whole
signal.


Which is what I was implying.....

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:50:48 UTC, guv wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:00:51 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

I've explained the difference; you clearly cannot comprehend. I
won't
waste my time.

More likely you can't....

Tell that to the 314 people I just taught it to...they understood
fine.


So you say....

No to answer my question if you can....bearing in mind the cleavat you
placed in your original remarks....

If the recipients mail box is full, it will keep trying and eventually
bounce back.

If the recpient's mailbox is full, the server should return a 552 error.
All 5xx errors are immediately fatal and preclude a retry, so the mail
shuld be bounced straight away. That is not, however, the situation to
which I was referring.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"guv" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:00:51 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

I've explained the difference; you clearly cannot comprehend.
I
won't
waste my time.

More likely you can't....

Tell that to the 314 people I just taught it to...they understood
fine.


So you say....

No to answer my question if you can....bearing in mind the cleavat
you
placed in your original remarks....

If the recipients mail box is full, it will keep trying and
eventually
bounce back.


But there was no recipients mail box, the address was non existent !

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
be more robust to modest levels of interference that are obvious on
analogue.


In somebody's dreams. Analogue signals are much more robust than
digital. The detection signal strength of an analogue radio sound signal
for understandable reception is IME almost x10 that of a digital
signal! Try measuring the speed of a 2.4GHz network to see how prone to
interference digital becomes throughout a day!

Depends on many things. One example is NICAM sound. It will still be
'perfect' with obvious picture problems. Of course when it does 'go' it
doesn't do so gracefully.

--
*Rehab is for quitters

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

So do explain why mail can be returned to the sender up to a week
after the mail was sent to a invalid and non existent address......

If the email was sent to an invalid, non existent address and took a week
to bounce then the mail server is broken.

If (as others have said) it the domain is valid then the mail system will
attempt to deliver it to the mail machine(s) at that domain. If the
address is invalid then ideally the remote machine should not accept it
and should reject at SMTP time with a permenant error (5**) to cut down
on collaterol spam but several systems out there are broken and accept and
then bounce. Should still be pretty instant though. If the remote mail
system accepts the email and then takes a week to bounce it it must have
been sent to an address that is valid (many domains run catchall addresses
for example). A mail system will not keep retrying a non existant address
for a week - it has nothing to retry! (unless it is very, very brain dead).

Darren