I'm sorry if this has already been addressed, but recently some of my posts to this list have taken more than 24 hours from the time I send them until they are distributed. Other posts only take a few minutes. Are others having the same problem? Is this problem random or is there something I do that makes it take so long? For example, it seems that it is the somewhat longer posts of mine that take longer, but that may be just a coincidence. -David |
David: It happens all of the time. Server stuff around the world, where yours goes and heads to SM. Sometimes it appears to be a lot of the time. I can send a post and two seconds later it hits the list, then again it could be hours... I strongly suggest you talk nicely to your computer goddess. ginny At 11:11 AM 8/3/2004, you wrote: <Snip> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. You may not have noticed, David, but you're posting in HTML. One of the side effects of that is that the filesize of your email can get very big. Particularly if you change fonts in the middle. I know that some large messages are automatically deleted, and if you fall into a grey area between really big and small, I think that your post gets pigeon holed until someone can check to ensure it's a valid post. You might try posting in plain text and see if your mail gets processed more quickly. -- Rick From: dna I'm sorry if this has already been addressed, but recently some of my posts to this list have taken more than 24 hours from the time I send them until they are distributed. Other posts only take a few minutes. -David |
<Snip> I wish I had a computer goddess. Get's me all tingly just thinking about it... Gene Smith riding the wild learning curve, in Houston |
I'll send one over!! ginny At 01:42 PM 8/3/2004, you wrote: <Snip> |
Benny knows... g At 02:05 PM 8/6/2004, you wrote: <Snip> |
<Snip> I won't say that's the first thing I learned on this list, Ben...wait a minute...that *was* the first thing I learned on this list! Gene Smith riding the wild learning curve, in Houston |
<Snip> Thank you, Ginny. I promise to have no other coffee goddesses before her. No graven images, either (though...if she turns out to be a redhead, I'd love a snapshot). Gene Smith riding the wild learning curve, in Houston |
<Snip>
Right - we keep a very tight 8 k limit on emails to prevent spam
attachments and HTML posts and long quoted messages from hitting the
list... don't reply to the list in HTML! people hate it...
Tom
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Great coffee comes from tiny roasters"
Sweet Maria's Home Coffee Roasting - Tom & Maria
http://www.sweetmarias.com Thompson Owen george |
On Aug 3, 2004, at 6:29pm, Gene Smith wrote: <Snip> I thought Gin was the inspiration for Hot Mama. John Blumel |
redheads we can do... g At 03:32 PM 8/3/2004, you wrote: <Snip> |
you boy's are learning, Gene you seem to be on the advanced curve! g At 03:29 PM 8/3/2004, you wrote: <Snip> |
watch out John, your close... g At 03:56 PM 8/3/2004, you wrote: <Snip> |
Rick says: You may not have noticed, David, but you’re posting in HTML. (etc.) I suspected the situation was what you said. Is this information posted anywhere on SM's site? If not, I think it would be very useful if it were and would make the list run more smoothly. I use a rather limited web-email application that my ISP (comcast.net) provides when I'm at work and so far as I can tell, I have no option to disable sending in HTML. But I can send plain text when I send email from home. -David |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. I've seen it mentioned here from time to time, and noticed the same effect, myself. I expect, however, that our host is too busy cupping and bagging to give much time to keeping a list FAQ updated. Maybe someone would like to maintain a Homeroast List FAQ? Questions like yours, and maybe the list of acronyms we use would be good entries. Perhaps you'd like to take it on? Please don't think that I was in any way criticizing your choice to post in HTML. I generally post in plain text, myself, but I would argue until most others were tired of it in support of your right to post HTML. After all, this is the nineties ... or wait . it's the oughts now! -- Rick From: dna . Is this information posted anywhere on SM's site? If not, I think it would be very useful if it were and would make the list run more smoothly . . I have no option to disable sending in HTML . |
Tom wrote: <Snip> That's rather unfortunate for me since HTML is the only way I can send email from work. I'm rather surprised in this day and age that people still have problem's with HTML. Or in an age of cheap 200,000,000,000+ byte hard disk drives want a 8,000 byte limit on email. Oh well. I'll see if I can find myself a computer Goddess to comfort me. :) -David (this msg sent from home) |
David: I will send someone right over. ginny you will feel much better... At 07:04 PM 8/3/2004, you wrote: <Snip> |
At 7:04 PM -0700 8/03/04, David Altekruse wrote: <Snip> David, What mail program do you use that does not let you turn off HTML in email? Are you sure that it does not have an option to turn it off? --Edward |
Edward writes: <Snip> I use my ISP's (comcast.net) web-based email program. That way I can read all my home email from work and respond with my home email address. It is a very simple email program that runs on a web-browser. Of course, I could use my work's email (Outlook) but I don't want non-work email going to or from that address. Another option would be for me to use another email server (like Hotmail, assuming it can send plain text messages) just for this list. There would be advantages and disadvantages to that. Maybe I'll give that a try. Thanks. -David |
On Aug 4, 2004, at 12:02am, David Altekruse wrote: <Snip> David, I'm guessing that the long delayed message you referred to at the beginning of this thread was the "RE: +I-Roast Modification" post that sat on braxton.siteprotect.com for ~22 hours. Assuming this message got hung up in Mailman waiting for approval, one of the reasons this may have happened is the very large amount of quoted text you included in your reply. And, since your ISP's web mail interface seems to send both a plain text and html version of the message, the html content more than doubled the total size of the message. The final byte count, including headers, was a bit (no pun intended) over 29K bytes. One thing you could do to avoid this problem is to aggressively trim the text being quoted to minimize the total message size. Without the quoted text and including headers and both versions of your message, plain and html, the message is a little over 6K bytes. If your ISP's web interface has a setting that allows you to suppress the html copy (or not send multi-part mime messages) that would further cut the message size by more than half. John Blumel |
Gene, Don't you know that Gin thinks SHE IS the computer Goddess for this list! Thats why you shouldn't cross Mother Gin ;-) Gene Smith wrote: <Snip> -- Ben Treichel Program Manager S.E Michigan SwRI 248-232-7365 (o) 248-935-6845 (m) |
John Blumel wrote: <Snip> I don't think so. I've never heard Gin compared to Betty Crocker, or for sale for 49.95 (or any other price) ;-) <Snip> -- Ben Treichel Program Manager S.E Michigan SwRI 248-232-7365 (o) 248-935-6845 (m) |