At 11:06 AM +0900 10/5/06, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Then each subsequent mail found a 'cached' block and was itself
> > blocked and also updated the cache expiration. When I stopped
> > sending for over a week, the cached entry finally expired.
>
> This would be a serious violation of ca
At 9:05 AM -0700 10/4/06, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Now this may well be a coincidence, but it is also possible that
> att.net had a DNS reverse lookup error at the beginning and blocked
> the IP. Then each subsequent mail found a 'cached' block and was
> itself blocked and also updated the cache e
Mark Sapiro writes:
> Then each subsequent mail found a 'cached' block and was itself
> blocked and also updated the cache expiration. When I stopped
> sending for over a week, the cached entry finally expired.
This would be a serious violation of cache semantics, though. If the
bug occurred
Peter Davis wrote:
>
>Is there a fast way? Is there a way to automatically un-bounce all bouncing
>members?
Without command line access which I gather you don't have, you can do
it by scripting the web interface which leads to the answer below.
>I realize this won't solve the Comcast problem.
