Undeliverable mail

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by pyram, May 14, 2005.

  1. pyram

    pyram Guest

    I have sent emails to a virgin-net address many times during the last two years. Today I received the following from System Administrator:

    The destination server for this recipient could not be found in Domain Name Service (DNS). Please verify the email address and retry.
    If that fails, contact your administrator.
    <smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk #5.4.0>

    Are virgin-net blocking mail from blueyonder?
    pyram, May 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. pyram

    Old Gringo Guest

    pyram wrote:
    > I have sent emails to a *virgin-net* address many times during the last
    > two years. Today I received the following from System Administrator:
    >
    > The destination server for this recipient could not be found in Domain
    > Name Service (DNS). Please verify the email address and retry.
    > If that fails, contact your administrator.
    > <smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk #5.4.0>
    >
    > Are *virgin-net *blocking mail from blueyonder?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    With detailed instructions as how to resolve your problem, why are
    you here?

    --
    Old Gringo George
    Magic Weaver Of Life
    Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest
    Freedom For The World <http://www.nuboy-Industries.com>
    Old Gringo, May 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. pyram

    Mike Easter Guest

    pyram wrote:
    X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
    Content-Type: text/html;

    First, a very important housekeeping issue. Do *not* post to newsgroups
    in html.

    Set your newsreader OE to plaintext for newsgroups at: OE/ Tools/
    Options/ Send tab/ News sending format - check plaintext, not html.

    > I have sent emails to a virgin-net address many times during the last
    > two years. Today I received the following from System Administrator:
    >
    > The destination server for this recipient could not be found in
    > Domain Name Service (DNS). Please verify the email address and
    > retry.
    > If that fails, contact your administrator.
    > <smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk #5.4.0>
    >
    > Are virgin-net blocking mail from blueyonder?


    I don't know why you say 'virgin-net' address if you mean virgin.net
    address.

    That delivery status is saying that when the blueyonder tried to find
    the MX for the address which you failed to give the domainname for and
    which you expressed wrong in your question that it couldn't do so.

    For example, if an address is then the blueyonder
    server finds out that virgin.net's MX is
    inbound.virgin.net.criticalpath.net at 194.168.54.50 and it can send a
    mail -- whereas if you tried to email username@virgin-net - there
    wouldn't be an MX or an IP address to connect to because that name is
    malformed.and you would get the information 'the destination server for
    this recipient couldn't be found...'

    --
    Mike Easter
    Mike Easter, May 14, 2005
    #3
  4. pyram

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Sat, 14 May 2005 15:01:18 GMT, Old Gringo
    <> wrote:

    >With detailed instructions as how to resolve your problem, why are
    >you here?


    A glutton for punishment? ;)
    --
    To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.
    Evan Platt, May 14, 2005
    #4
  5. pyram

    why? Guest

    On Sat, 14 May 2005 14:53:48 GMT, pyram wrote:

    >I have sent emails to a virgin-net address many times during the last two years. Today I received the following from System Administrator:
    >
    >The destination server for this recipient could not be found in Domain Name Service (DNS). Please verify the email address and retry.


    The destination server is?

    If you do a manual DNS lookup what happens?

    >If that fails, contact your administrator.
    > <smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk #5.4.0>


    You did try contacting your mail administrator?

    Failing that maybe,

    Status Page (could be lots better)
    http://www.blueyonder.co.uk/blueyonder/status/index.jsp

    Service Status (link to) a very crap one as it's JavaScript
    http://www.virgin.net/customers/

    >Are virgin-net blocking mail from blueyonder?


    Then not forgetting, newsgroups,

    blueyonder.announce
    blueyonder.announce.internet
    blueyonder.support.mail
    blueyonder.users.self-help

    Me


    P.S. Your anti spam munged email addy may stop you getting spam mail,
    although 'nospam' is easy to find and remove. In any case if you don't
    get spam you still prefer not munging the domain name so it gets
    delivered to BY mail servers any way. Then they servers have to store
    and attempt to deliver the mail when they then give up and try and send
    an undelivered message it only serves to increase pointless mail and
    traffic.

    Read this -
    http://www.blueyonder.co.uk/blueyonder/getContent.jspx?page=h_services_news_troubleshooting_howavoid
    and / or
    http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html
    why?, May 14, 2005
    #5
  6. pyram

    Mara Guest

    On Sat, 14 May 2005 14:53:48 GMT, "pyram" <> wrote:

    >I have sent emails to a virgin-net address many times during the last two years. Today I received the following from System Administrator:
    >
    >The destination server for this recipient could not be found in Domain Name Service (DNS). Please verify the email address and retry.
    >If that fails, contact your administrator.
    > <smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk #5.4.0>
    >
    >Are virgin-net blocking mail from blueyonder?


    By RFC, 5.4.0 is a network/routing issue. Blocking by policy (blocking mail) is
    usually a 5.7.x issue (usually 5.7.1., but not always.) Blueyonder *is* blocked
    in many places, though.

    BTW, your munge is in the wrong place to be effective, and "nospam" wouldn't be
    anyway; bots can parse that and ignore it.


    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
    Mara, May 14, 2005
    #6
  7. pyram

    SEYMOUR Guest

    i am in awe of your vast knowledge and helpful personality

    the questioner now feels so much better about him/herself and has a
    comprehensive solution to the problem posed

    the word in the ng description "helpdesk" gives a clue to what level of
    questioner will visit this group

    if all you can do is take the p*ss then i suggest you go back to looking at
    porn or whatever it is you do on your pc instead of userping the genuine
    attempts of the computer illeterate to widen and enhance their knowledge and
    skills.

    you iraquis are all the same




    "Mike Easter" <> wrote in message
    news:42861578$0$8527$...
    > pyram wrote:
    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
    > Content-Type: text/html;
    >
    > First, a very important housekeeping issue. Do *not* post to newsgroups
    > in html.
    >
    > Set your newsreader OE to plaintext for newsgroups at: OE/ Tools/
    > Options/ Send tab/ News sending format - check plaintext, not html.
    >
    >> I have sent emails to a virgin-net address many times during the last
    >> two years. Today I received the following from System Administrator:
    >>
    >> The destination server for this recipient could not be found in
    >> Domain Name Service (DNS). Please verify the email address and
    >> retry.
    >> If that fails, contact your administrator.
    >> <smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk #5.4.0>
    >>
    >> Are virgin-net blocking mail from blueyonder?

    >
    > I don't know why you say 'virgin-net' address if you mean virgin.net
    > address.
    >
    > That delivery status is saying that when the blueyonder tried to find
    > the MX for the address which you failed to give the domainname for and
    > which you expressed wrong in your question that it couldn't do so.
    >
    > For example, if an address is then the blueyonder
    > server finds out that virgin.net's MX is
    > inbound.virgin.net.criticalpath.net at 194.168.54.50 and it can send a
    > mail -- whereas if you tried to email username@virgin-net - there
    > wouldn't be an MX or an IP address to connect to because that name is
    > malformed.and you would get the information 'the destination server for
    > this recipient couldn't be found...'
    >
    > --
    > Mike Easter
    >
    SEYMOUR, May 14, 2005
    #7
  8. pyram

    why? Guest

    On Sat, 14 May 2005 14:53:48 GMT, pyram wrote:

    Notice there is no HTML in this reply, although your post suffers badly
    from that affliction.

    Why post 79 lines , headers - message (twice) - HTML , when 30 lines do
    just as well.

    >I have sent emails to a virgin-net address many times during the last two years. Today I received the following from System Administrator:


    HTML email is still evil -
    http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil.shtml
    http://www.birdhouse.org/etc/evilmail.html
    http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/

    <snip>

    Me
    why?, May 14, 2005
    #8
  9. pyram

    Yddap Guest

    In news:0iohe.76500$,
    pyram <> opined very noisily:
    > I have sent emails to a virgin-net address many times during the last
    > two years. Today I received the following from System Administrator:
    >
    > The destination server for this recipient could not be found in
    > Domain Name Service (DNS). Please verify the email address and
    > retry.
    > If that fails, contact your administrator.
    > <smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk #5.4.0>
    >
    > Are virgin-net blocking mail from blueyonder?


    Try virgin.net See
    http://www.virgin.net/customers/helpme/email/outlook6/13.html
    --

    Yddap
    Remove guts to reply
    Yddap, May 14, 2005
    #9
  10. pyram

    Mara Guest

    On Sat, 14 May 2005 15:28:17 +0000 (UTC), "SEYMOUR" <labour@the
    edgeofcollapse.com> wrote:

    >i am in awe of your vast knowledge and helpful personality


    You should be.

    >the questioner now feels so much better about him/herself and has a
    >comprehensive solution to the problem posed
    >
    >the word in the ng description "helpdesk" gives a clue to what level of
    >questioner will visit this group


    Then leave.

    >if all you can do is take the p*ss then i suggest you go back to looking at
    >porn or whatever it is you do on your pc instead of userping the genuine
    >attempts of the computer illeterate to widen and enhance their knowledge and
    >skills.


    This has *got* to be the biggest PKB I've seen in 24HSHD lately. Your own post
    helps whom do what? Mike's post was informational and very accurate. Yours was
    just a full-blown whine and nothing else.

    "**** off, luser."

    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
    Mara, May 14, 2005
    #10
  11. pyram

    Mara Guest

    On Sat, 14 May 2005 15:31:34 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    wrote:

    >
    >On Sat, 14 May 2005 14:53:48 GMT, pyram wrote:
    >
    >Notice there is no HTML in this reply, although your post suffers badly
    >from that affliction.
    >
    >Why post 79 lines , headers - message (twice) - HTML , when 30 lines do
    >just as well.
    >
    >>I have sent emails to a virgin-net address many times during the last two years. Today I received the following from System Administrator:

    >
    >HTML email is still evil -
    >http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil.shtml
    >http://www.birdhouse.org/etc/evilmail.html
    >http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/
    >
    ><snip>


    Thank you very much. :)

    >
    >Me


    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
    Mara, May 14, 2005
    #11
  12. pyram

    why? Guest

    On Sat, 14 May 2005 10:41:15 -0500, Mara wrote:

    >On Sat, 14 May 2005 15:31:34 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>On Sat, 14 May 2005 14:53:48 GMT, pyram wrote:
    >>
    >>Notice there is no HTML in this reply, although your post suffers badly
    >>from that affliction.
    >>

    <snip>

    >>Me


    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r

    Because I got a told at work to look after the lusers and play nice.

    Me
    why?, May 14, 2005
    #12
  13. pyram

    Mara Guest

    On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:55:43 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    wrote:

    >
    >On Sat, 14 May 2005 10:41:15 -0500, Mara wrote:


    <snip>
    >"No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    > AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    > --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
    >
    >Because I got a told at work to look after the lusers and play nice.


    Gah. Who told you that? H/h head should be on a pike. This is usenet, not $ork,
    anyway.

    At work, I found that "playing nice" amounted to giving my lusers whatever they
    wanted, in their opinion. Including streaming media, shopping sites, even
    personals sites. Never mind what it was doing to the network. What THEY were
    doing to the network.

    "Ain't gonna happen. If that means I'm not "playing nice," so be it."

    >
    >Me


    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
    Mara, May 14, 2005
    #13
  14. pyram

    why? Guest

    X-No-Archive: Yes
    On Sat, 14 May 2005 12:38:04 -0500, Mara wrote:

    >On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:55:43 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>On Sat, 14 May 2005 10:41:15 -0500, Mara wrote:

    >
    ><snip>
    >>"No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    >> AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    >> --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
    >>
    >>Because I got a told at work to look after the lusers and play nice.

    >
    >Gah. Who told you that? H/h head should be on a pike. This is usenet, not $ork,
    >anyway.


    I tended use usenet replies towards those paying my wages :-(

    >At work, I found that "playing nice" amounted to giving my lusers whatever they
    >wanted, in their opinion. Including streaming media, shopping sites, even
    >personals sites. Never mind what it was doing to the network. What THEY were
    >doing to the network.


    Just been through one of those last week, since end of Dec after annual
    power down incl room UPS, 1 NT server acting up, several others failed
    pings and users reported problems on and off. New switches, monitoring
    for months, baselining and still the fault all proof pointed to not
    what's often called 'a network fault'. After agreement for 1 days
    downtime move 1 connection at a time , 1 other NT box with a bad NIC
    caused the fault.

    On day 1 I said it wasn't a 'network' fault all the kit was fine.

    Then there is the constant WINS look up failues on the 'other network'
    and some luser ARPing to addresses they shouldn't on a standalone setup.

    My IDS box alarms going off.

    The datacenter 400 miles away, tends not to be a LAN issue but it always
    is.

    Isn't networking fun :)

    >"Ain't gonna happen. If that means I'm not "playing nice," so be it."


    Agree LOL.

    Me
    why?, May 14, 2005
    #14
  15. pyram

    Mara Guest

    On Sat, 14 May 2005 17:55:59 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    wrote:

    >X-No-Archive: Yes
    >On Sat, 14 May 2005 12:38:04 -0500, Mara wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:55:43 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>On Sat, 14 May 2005 10:41:15 -0500, Mara wrote:

    >>
    >><snip>
    >>>"No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    >>> AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    >>> --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
    >>>
    >>>Because I got a told at work to look after the lusers and play nice.

    >>
    >>Gah. Who told you that? H/h head should be on a pike. This is usenet, not $ork,
    >>anyway.

    >
    >I tended use usenet replies towards those paying my wages :-(


    Uh...oops. ;)

    Personally I can see a day when I do it deliberately, in hopes of getting
    fired....

    >>At work, I found that "playing nice" amounted to giving my lusers whatever they
    >>wanted, in their opinion. Including streaming media, shopping sites, even
    >>personals sites. Never mind what it was doing to the network. What THEY were
    >>doing to the network.

    >
    >Just been through one of those last week, since end of Dec after annual
    >power down incl room UPS, 1 NT server acting up, several others failed
    >pings and users reported problems on and off. New switches, monitoring
    >for months, baselining and still the fault all proof pointed to not
    >what's often called 'a network fault'. After agreement for 1 days
    >downtime move 1 connection at a time , 1 other NT box with a bad NIC
    >caused the fault.


    They made you wait this long to fix this? WTF is the matter with them?

    >On day 1 I said it wasn't a 'network' fault all the kit was fine.


    If you're IT, your $PHB(s) will never believe that you actually know what you're
    doing, in spite of the fact that they hired you because you did.

    How's that for common sense and logic? True, though.

    >Then there is the constant WINS look up failues on the 'other network'
    >and some luser ARPing to addresses they shouldn't on a standalone setup.


    Can you wall sh/h/it off and cut them off until they stop, or just restrict that
    box's connection?

    >My IDS box alarms going off.


    Naturally.

    >The datacenter 400 miles away, tends not to be a LAN issue but it always
    >is.
    >
    >Isn't networking fun :)


    Every morning, I pray to the Elder Gods that the people involved in writing
    network protocols be slowly boiled in oil. Numerous times.

    >
    >>"Ain't gonna happen. If that means I'm not "playing nice," so be it."

    >
    >Agree LOL.


    I've got one luser that's sure she knows everything there is to know about
    boxen, which means she barely knows how to hit the "on" switch. I installed SP 2
    for XP on her box, which she didn't want me to do, and the fight was on. She
    claimed that her box didn't work right after that, but the history and cookies
    on that box showed the real culprit - herself, of course.

    It isn't much of a fight - she called me down to her office because she couldn't
    log in. Of course she couldn't, she was *already* logged in. What an utter twit.

    Hell, she isn't even entertaining. <sigh>

    >
    >Me


    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
    Mara, May 14, 2005
    #15
  16. pyram

    why? Guest

    On Sat, 14 May 2005 15:42:55 -0500, Mara wrote:

    >On Sat, 14 May 2005 17:55:59 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>X-No-Archive: Yes
    >>On Sat, 14 May 2005 12:38:04 -0500, Mara wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:55:43 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>On Sat, 14 May 2005 10:41:15 -0500, Mara wrote:
    >>>
    >>><snip>
    >>>>"No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    >>>> AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    >>>> --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
    >>>>
    >>>>Because I got a told at work to look after the lusers and play nice.
    >>>
    >>>Gah. Who told you that? H/h head should be on a pike. This is usenet, not $ork,
    >>>anyway.

    >>
    >>I tended use usenet replies towards those paying my wages :-(

    >
    >Uh...oops. ;)
    >

    <snip>

    Thanks for the replies, cheered me up a bit.

    Now to install XP Pro 64bit and it's only 01:56 AM on a dark Sunday
    morning.

    Me
    why?, May 15, 2005
    #16
  17. pyram

    Mara Guest

    On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:53:39 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    wrote:

    <snip>
    >Thanks for the replies, cheered me up a bit.


    NP. :)

    >Now to install XP Pro 64bit and it's only 01:56 AM on a dark Sunday
    >morning.


    I just have to ask this:

    Why on earth would you want to do that? Isn't XP 32-bit bad enough? <beg>

    >Me


    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
    Mara, May 15, 2005
    #17
  18. pyram

    why? Guest

    On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:46:05 -0500, Mara wrote:

    >On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:53:39 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    >wrote:
    >
    ><snip>
    >>Thanks for the replies, cheered me up a bit.

    >
    >NP. :)
    >
    >>Now to install XP Pro 64bit and it's only 01:56 AM on a dark Sunday
    >>morning.

    >
    >I just have to ask this:
    >
    >Why on earth would you want to do that? Isn't XP 32-bit bad enough? <beg>


    Just for a look, it's part of my Technet subscription. The Fedora Core 3
    64bit DVD is sitting on top of the box and will be installed in the next
    few days as a permanent feature.

    Me
    why?, May 15, 2005
    #18
  19. pyram

    Mara Guest

    On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:11:03 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    wrote:

    >
    >On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:46:05 -0500, Mara wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:53:39 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >><snip>
    >>>Thanks for the replies, cheered me up a bit.

    >>
    >>NP. :)
    >>
    >>>Now to install XP Pro 64bit and it's only 01:56 AM on a dark Sunday
    >>>morning.

    >>
    >>I just have to ask this:
    >>
    >>Why on earth would you want to do that? Isn't XP 32-bit bad enough? <beg>

    >
    >Just for a look, it's part of my Technet subscription. The Fedora Core 3
    >64bit DVD is sitting on top of the box and will be installed in the next
    >few days as a permanent feature.


    Let me know what you find, would you?

    I intend to build a 64-bit system one of these days, but I'm not going to run
    Windows on it. That's just asking too much, IMHO. But I *would* like to know
    what you find, and also how Fedora runs for you. I haven't decided which distro
    I want to run in the new system once it's built.

    "I'd much rather hear about someone's actual experience than just opinion."

    >Me


    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
    Mara, May 15, 2005
    #19
  20. pyram

    why? Guest

    On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:31:01 -0500, Mara wrote:

    >On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:11:03 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:46:05 -0500, Mara wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:53:39 GMT, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>><snip>
    >>>>Thanks for the replies, cheered me up a bit.
    >>>
    >>>NP. :)
    >>>
    >>>>Now to install XP Pro 64bit and it's only 01:56 AM on a dark Sunday
    >>>>morning.
    >>>
    >>>I just have to ask this:
    >>>
    >>>Why on earth would you want to do that? Isn't XP 32-bit bad enough? <beg>

    >>
    >>Just for a look, it's part of my Technet subscription. The Fedora Core 3
    >>64bit DVD is sitting on top of the box and will be installed in the next
    >>few days as a permanent feature.

    >
    >Let me know what you find, would you?


    Sure.

    <snip>

    Me
    why?, May 15, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. °Mike°

    Re: undeliverable e-mails due to server error

    °Mike°, Aug 3, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    482
    °Mike°
    Aug 3, 2003
  2. why?
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    520
  3. Replies:
    11
    Views:
    4,551
    steve gibbs
    Aug 10, 2003
  4. Peter C
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,678
    Peter C
    Jan 14, 2004
  5. Geoff

    hotmail.com mail undeliverable

    Geoff, Sep 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,369
Loading...

Share This Page