| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Way OT -> DVD recorders
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 Thank you Richard -- Real email address is RJSavage at BIGFOOT dot COM The information contained in this post may not be published in, or used by http://www.diyprojects.info |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 |
|
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:03 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter