On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, ais523 wrote: > It's also worth noting that G. could have sent messages via backup fora > and received them via looking at the online archives. I think that that > effort is not unreasonable; however, the issue is that there was no > information to let G. know that that's what he should have been doing in > the first place.
I was more interested in messages sent by others; of course I could have used BAK myself. But a key point is I *couldn't* look at the online archives - I tried a few times. My account was deactivated due to the bouncing and so I lost password access to archives. In the first few days I thought it was part of the overall breakage, so I thought based on Taral's emails that everyone was experiencing it and no mail was getting through except on BAK. I didn't want to trouble Taral by email nor by mucking with my subscription; it was only after e told me that some accounts had been messed up that I resubscribed (or had reasonable cause to believe that I had to). Of course, the act of resubscribing was trivial and fixed things. So I'm most interested in those messages sent in the first few days the site was up when I had made every reasonable effort to receive messages (by subscribing in the first place) and had no reason to believe that others' messages were getting through, and couldn't directly check. The messages assigning me to judge 2765 and 2777 might be good test cases. I'm also curious about, if I get a bounce notification on a particular message I sent (and the bounce notification says that my machine will continue to try to deliver the message... I got a bounce messages every 24 hours for 3 days before the machine gave up) on how that impacts timing or whether I should be expected to re-send to BAK. -G.
