[Lowfer] QTH.NET mail problem

Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:31:54 -0500

Hi Mike,

Looks like Stewart's forwarder worked after all, but maybe delayed your test
messages a bit.

I'd like to give his method and Dexter's Web-based e-mail approach a chance
to work first, unless things really fall apart fast with qth.net.  I believe
they'll come up with with an answer for the current problems eventually, and
I don't want to further fragment the communication lines of the LowFER
community if it can be avoided.

Since interest has been expressed, I will begin working on alternatives that
can be available whenever needed.  This will probably mean an eventual
expansion of the LWCA site.  I'd been sounding a few people out over the
last several weeks about adding a second hosting provider and integrating
the additional services available there with the current site.  The other
provider would allow for a lot more file storage and a lot more user
interactivity, although they don't guarantee the same availability numbers
that our current server provides.  Therefore, I don't want to simply replace
the existing server outright; and, it would not make economic sense to add a
second one unless it would receive some use.  It's beginning to look as if
it might be used now, so I will pursue that option further.

John  D

- - - - - - - - - -

>Stewart's forwarder didn't work for me. QTH sucks. OK John, I say we go to
>the LWCA server.
>
>Mike>WE0H
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>On Behalf Of WE0H
>Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 12:32 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [Lowfer] QTH.NET mail problem
>
>Well let's try Stewart's re-mailer for now and make a decision later if
>needed. I totally like your idea John; a pure Lowfer server without the BS
>would be the ultimate choice as far as I am concerned.
>
>I am an owner of a Yahoo automotive group so I know how the server works
for
>that group. I keep the membership closed meaning that I have to have two
>questions answered before I approve a prospective member. I get zero spam
>that way and the group is very happy. I let them upload files and pictures
>and whatever they want to post for a message as long as it fits our group
>established guidelines. We have three strikes and you're out policy, which
>gives a person two times to do something very wrong, and then they are
>toast. Nobody has pushed that rule yet. We have 30 Meg of picture space and
>we clean up the non-essential stuff each month and most of it gets archived
>on personal servers. I believe the files section is the same size.
>
>As long as you have plenty of space on the LWCA server, I think your
>approach would be a very good thing. I suggest keeping the membership
closed
>which would require approval with some kind of question to validate a real
>person form a spammer. A few or couple of different moderators would be
>needed so the prospective members could get approved nearly 24/7. I believe
>there are enough people who are awake at different hours to keep it
covered.
>
>Comments please???
>
>Mike>WE0H
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>On Behalf Of John Davis
>Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 12:20 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Lowfer] QTH.NET mail problem
>
>I can empathize with the frustration, but I'm not sure falling into the
>clutches of Yahoo is that much better.  I monitor one group there
presently,
>and it's a bit of a bother dealing with the default quoting practices of
>some of the members with the mandatory Yahoo ads reappearing umpteen times.
>And if you want access to the group archives, you have to sign up for a
>Yahoo account and give them all kinds of information of immense value to
>marketers.
>
>Others may not find those drawbacks to be as significant as I do, but Yahoo
>is no panacea.
>
>If we need alternate communication methods until qth.net comes to their
>senses, the LW Message Board is still there.  If the tool needs to be more
>exclusively LowFER oriented, we can have a LowFER-specific message board or
>a Web-based chat going later today.  Or a combo message board/reflector
>(e-mail in and out for those who want their messages that way) this
weekend.
>Or a pure majordomo reflector, for that matter.  We have the tools; all
>someone has to do is say that they want one.
>
>( But I'm not going to spend my holiday that way unless folks say they'll
>use it.  8>)
>
>John D
>
>WE0H wrote:
>>Ditch QTH. Imagine getting on their 'Black List' and having to ask your
>>ISP's administrator to call them on the phone? Huh, good luck doing that.
>>Who does the bill get sent to? If you're on a national ISP do you think
you
>>can talk to the administrator? Again, good luck.
>>
>>Ditch QTH go to Yahoo.
>>
>>Mike>WE0H
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>>On Behalf Of [email protected]
>>Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 6:01 AM
>>To: Lowfer
>>Subject: [Lowfer] QTH.NET mail problem
>>
>>It appears that the new qth.net spam rules has blocked more people than
>>myself from sending messages to the Lowfer reflector.  In order for me to
>>post now I have to use an online web mail account.  Recently Kurt and
Ralph
>>has discovered their messages are blocked.  Kurt also indicates that many
>of
>>the MARS group members can not send messages to their group.
>>
>>If you have found that your messages to the Lowfer qth.net reflector has
>>been
>>blocked try sending via a web mail account or subscribe to the
>Lowfer_Notice
>>reflector on Yahoo Groups at:
>>
>>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lowfer_Notice/
>>
>>Maybe someone who subscribes to both reflectors will forward your message
>to
>>the qth.net Lowfer reflector.
>>
>>Dex
>