Confirmed nominations have been received for the following:

Jonathan Amery     jdamery (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
David Damerell    damerell (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Graham Drabble                   usenet05 (at) drabble (dot) me (dot) uk
Clive D. W. Feather                          clive (at) davros (dot) org
Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')        kat (dot) news (at) ntlworld (dot) com
Ian Jackson       ijackson (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Matthew Vernon                             matthew (at) debian (dot) org

As there are seven candidates for four vacancies on the Committee, an 
Election will now be held.

Cheers,

Barry
-- 
Barry Salter, bsalter (at) ukvoting (dot) org (dot) uk

"Barry Salter"  wrote ...

> Confirmed nominations have been received for the following:
>
> Jonathan Amery     jdamery (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
> David Damerell    damerell (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
> Graham Drabble                   usenet05 (at) drabble (dot) me (dot) uk
> Clive D. W. Feather                          clive (at) davros (dot) org
> Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')        kat (dot) news (at) ntlworld (dot) com
> Ian Jackson       ijackson (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
> Matthew Vernon                             matthew (at) debian (dot) org

Out of interest, as four nominees have a relationship to it, and it 
describes itself, seemingly tongue-in-cheek, as "Sinister, apparently. 
Dedicated to the overthrow of something-or-other", what exactly is 
"chiark.greened.org.uk' ?

I'm curious as to why four people with 'something in common' would all be 
standing for election. Not that they shouldn't nor am I suggesting they 
don't have merit or there is anything untoward, it just caught my attention. 
Perhaps I'm premature and my curiosity will be addressed at 'hustings' ?

In message <yqiDm.5252$KR3.4846@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy 
Hippy  writes
>
>"Barry Salter"  wrote ...
>
>> Confirmed nominations have been received for the following:
>>
>> Jonathan Amery     jdamery (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
>> David Damerell    damerell (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
>> Graham Drabble                   usenet05 (at) drabble (dot) me (dot) uk
>> Clive D. W. Feather                          clive (at) davros (dot) org
>> Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')        kat (dot) news (at) ntlworld (dot) com
>> Ian Jackson       ijackson (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
>> Matthew Vernon                             matthew (at) debian (dot) org
>
>Out of interest, as four nominees have a relationship to it, and it
>describes itself, seemingly tongue-in-cheek, as "Sinister, apparently.
>Dedicated to the overthrow of something-or-other", what exactly is
>"chiark.greened.org.uk' ?
>
>I'm curious as to why four people with 'something in common' would all be
>standing for election. Not that they shouldn't nor am I suggesting they
>don't have merit or there is anything untoward, it just caught my attention.
>Perhaps I'm premature and my curiosity will be addressed at 'hustings' ?
>
>
According to the paranoid ramblings of Steve Firth elsewhere on Usenet 
it's all a plot to takeover the committee by cyclists or something

-- 
Chris French

Chris French  wrote:

> According to the paranoid ramblings of Steve Firth elsewhere on Usenet
> it's all a plot to takeover the committee by cyclists or something

You'd do better if you didn't tell lies. Mind you, porkies and
fuckwittery seem to be part of the cyclists' charter.

jms  said:

> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:37:33 -0000, "kat" 
> wrote:
>
>> Geoff Berrow  said:
>>
>>> On 27 Oct 2009 18:52:18 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quoting  kat :
>>>>> David Damerell  said:
>>>>>> Well, I was pretty fed up with the whole process,
>>>>> Why didn't you stand again that year?
>>>>
>>>> Because I was pretty fed up.
>>>
>>> Such staying power.  Impressive.
>>
>> No, I'll allow him that, he'd have been no use, elected.  But I am
>> surprised it took him this long to get over it.
>
>
> miaou

Sometimes, I purr. ;-)


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

"Dominic Hargreaves"  wrote in message 
news:hc7s0c$mgr$5@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
> In uk.net.news.config The Happy Hippy  
> wrote:
>
>> Out of interest, as four nominees have a relationship to it, and it
>> describes itself, seemingly tongue-in-cheek, as "Sinister, apparently.
>> Dedicated to the overthrow of something-or-other", what exactly is
>> "chiark.greened.org.uk' ?
>>
>> I'm curious as to why four people with 'something in common' would all be
>> standing for election. Not that they shouldn't nor am I suggesting they
>> don't have merit or there is anything untoward, it just caught my 
>> attention.
>> Perhaps I'm premature and my curiosity will be addressed at 'hustings' ?
>
> My understanding is simply that it is a multi-user system which a
> number of people have accounts for reading mail and other network
> and computing activities, used mainly by people residing in the UK.
> My guess is that its users are much more computing and Internet
> literate than the general population and are therefore quite likely
> to be the sort of people to be interested in the management of uk.*

So a rabid obsession with cyclists' rights is a red herring?

Quoting  .m  :
> wrote:
>>>Why didn't you stand again that year?
>>Because I was pretty fed up.
>Did you participate within the committee whilst elected?

Yes.
-- 
David Damerell  Distortion Field!
Today is Thursday, October.
Tomorrow will be Friday, October.

"Mr Benn" <nospam@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:hc93dm$bo9$1@news.eternal-september.org: 

> "Dominic Hargreaves"  wrote in message 
> news:hc7s0c$mgr$5@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>> In uk.net.news.config The Happy Hippy
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Out of interest, as four nominees have a relationship to it, and
>>> it describes itself, seemingly tongue-in-cheek, as "Sinister,
>>> apparently. Dedicated to the overthrow of something-or-other",
>>> what exactly is "chiark.greened.org.uk' ?
>>>
>>> I'm curious as to why four people with 'something in common'
>>> would all be standing for election. Not that they shouldn't nor
>>> am I suggesting they don't have merit or there is anything
>>> untoward, it just caught my attention.
>>> Perhaps I'm premature and my curiosity will be addressed at
>>> 'hustings' ? 
>>
>> My understanding is simply that it is a multi-user system which a
>> number of people have accounts for reading mail and other network
>> and computing activities, used mainly by people residing in the
>> UK. My guess is that its users are much more computing and
>> Internet literate than the general population and are therefore
>> quite likely to be the sort of people to be interested in the
>> management of uk.* 
> 
> So a rabid obsession with cyclists' rights is a red herring? 

Well yes it is, I think:  it is more a conviction that the uk.* 
hierarchy would be much better run if they ran it.  This derives 
from their impression that urcm would have been set up much more 
quickly and efficiently if they were in charge:  their obsession 
with cyclists perhaps magnifies the enormity of the delay to such a 
vital project.


-- 
Percy Picacity

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:10:06 +0100, Graham Drabble
 wrote:

<snip>

 
>> Do you think that you are important?
>
>From what I know about Clive the answer is probably no. However he is 
>arguably the most technically and politically[0] knowledgable person 
>currently in unn* at the moment, one of the very few people who I'd 
>recommend trusting without bothering to check.
>
>[0] in terms of Usenet / Internet


He may have much to commend him.

However - I  despise people who jump in blow their  own trumpets to
the degree which he did - without actually contributing from his
knowledge.

The first dealing I had with him was when I asked  another poster :

"do you mind me asking what legal experience/qualifications you
possess?

And Clever Clive jumps straight in with:  

"Probably rather more than yours. I actively lobbied both for the
passing  of that legislation and for getting it implemented
correctly."
 
Well - I am sorry - but I wasn't actually asking him - and frankly I
could not give a toss.

It would not have been too bad if he had perhaps provided a reference
to the legislation  - but of course the object of the post was to let
people know how important he was.

Even another poster said "Isn't that a bit childish, Clive? I'd be
very interested to know the  answer, but I don't know what search
terms to use."

And indeed, it was childish.
--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Paul Cummins  wrote:

> And the reason uk.local doesn't include fictional places is because they
> don;t exist. The clue is in the word fictional. 
> 
> If they don't exist they can't be local to the UK...

Precisely. This is why there's no uk.local.berkshire.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:31:46 +0100, Barry Salter
 wrote:

>Confirmed nominations have been received for the following:
>
>Jonathan Amery     jdamery (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
>David Damerell    damerell (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
>Graham Drabble                   usenet05 (at) drabble (dot) me (dot) uk
>Clive D. W. Feather                          clive (at) davros (dot) org
>Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')        kat (dot) news (at) ntlworld (dot) com
>Ian Jackson       ijackson (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
>Matthew Vernon                             matthew (at) debian (dot) org
>
>As there are seven candidates for four vacancies on the Committee, an 
>Election will now be held.

I have recently tried to vote from my most commonly used email
address.  I sent a request to the requisite email adress and recieved
a ballot form in reply.

Now, this email address was compromised some years ago - it is not on
a 'reliable' domain (it is on a domain similar to hotmail), and was
used as the source of spam.  Nonetheless, I have carried on using it
as many people from my past will email there, and it is easy enough to
delete the spam.  There are other email addresses that I use that are
not compromised, but I thought that this would be the best email
address as it is one that I used on usenet before spam address
harvesting became common and before I got hijacked (yes, I know I have
a stable where the horse has bolted).

This is why, I presume that when I tried to return the ballot from
that email adress I was told that there were 'irregular symbols' or
something similar in it and that the ballot could not be sent.  I can
try and resend the email (again) to ascertain more detailed
information about the rejection message  if anyone is interested.

I am now trying to vote again from a more 'reliable' address.  

I bring this to the attention of the committe, because there is a
(faint) possibility that some potential voters may be disenfranchised
by blocks on their email addresses when they try to return ballots.  I
am not postulating a conspiracy against the Sinister Greenend
Organisation because I am fairly confident that those people are the
*most likely* to have uncompromised and therefore unblocked email
addresses.  

I will be voting from the kororaa domain (if that's allowed - more
sinister than greenend, perhaps) - I was previously voting from fsnet
co uk, if this has any bearing on the matter.  I think it is important
that I bring this to the attention of the committee, anyway.

>I bring this to the attention of the committe, because there is a
>(faint) possibility that some potential voters may be disenfranchised
>by blocks on their email addresses when they try to return ballots.  I
>am not postulating a conspiracy against the Sinister Greenend
>Organisation because I am fairly confident that those people are the
>*most likely* to have uncompromised and therefore unblocked email
>addresses.  

I forgot to add: FYI, and being a usenet user of some years, I have
every confidence in those people who were nominated from Chiark.  I am
not a cyclist, but I am absolutely certain that at least one of those
nominees will bring a fresher, more modern outlook to usenet should he
be elected; I have been a regular of unnc in the past under a
different handle (mostly during the uk.legal.moderated wars, during
which I supported the moderated group) and I am familiar with many of
the old feuds that inhabit these spaces; I am not trying to advocate
one thing over another really.

I JUST WANT TO VOTE.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:10:44 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>Now, this email address was compromised some years ago - it is not on
>a 'reliable' domain (it is on a domain similar to hotmail), and was
>used as the source of spam.

Aside: your email address can be used as the source of spam without it
being compromised.  Header forgery is routine in spammers, and malware
will commonly pick a random address form someone's address book to use
as the purported sender of malicious or spam messages.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
GPG public ket at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

In message , at 19:10:44 on 
Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wibbled
>On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:31:46 +0100, Barry Salter
> wrote:
>
>>Confirmed nominations have been received for the following:
>>
>>Jonathan Amery     jdamery (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
>>David Damerell    damerell (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
>>Graham Drabble                   usenet05 (at) drabble (dot) me (dot) uk
>>Clive D. W. Feather                          clive (at) davros (dot) org
>>Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')        kat (dot) news (at) ntlworld (dot) com
>>Ian Jackson       ijackson (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
>>Matthew Vernon                             matthew (at) debian (dot) org
>>
>>As there are seven candidates for four vacancies on the Committee, an
>>Election will now be held.
>
>I have recently tried to vote from my most commonly used email
>address.  I sent a request to the requisite email adress and recieved
>a ballot form in reply.
>
>Now, this email address was compromised some years ago - it is not on
>a 'reliable' domain (it is on a domain similar to hotmail), and was
>used as the source of spam.  Nonetheless, I have carried on using it
>as many people from my past will email there, and it is easy enough to
>delete the spam.  There are other email addresses that I use that are
>not compromised, but I thought that this would be the best email
>address as it is one that I used on usenet before spam address
>harvesting became common and before I got hijacked (yes, I know I have
>a stable where the horse has bolted).
>
>This is why, I presume that when I tried to return the ballot from
>that email adress I was told that there were 'irregular symbols' or
>something similar in it and that the ballot could not be sent.  I can
>try and resend the email (again) to ascertain more detailed
>information about the rejection message  if anyone is interested.

The actual rejection message would definitely be of interest. It will 
likely shed some light on *where* the message is being rejected.

The mail server you are using to send email and the name of your mail 
client could possibly be useful.

One question that might also be usefully answered is: is the rejection 
notice coming from your email client or is it a separate email saying 
that your email has bounced?

UKV would definitely be interested and you can contact the VT here:
Votetaker: Barry Salter <com2k09-queries (at) ukvotes.southie.me.uk>

Follow-Up set to unnm only.
-- 
Pedt
Member of, but not speaking for, UKV.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:10:44 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

<snip>


>I will be voting from the kororaa domain (if that's allowed - more
>sinister than greenend, perhaps) - I was previously voting from fsnet
>co uk, if this has any bearing on the matter.  I think it is important
>that I bring this to the attention of the committee, anyway. 


For the purposes of voting - just register a Hotmail account and vote
from there.  I have successfully voted from mine.

(You will of course nor be able to email anyone at chiark or the URCM
moderators from that account - but that is a different matter)

In uk.net.news.config, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really>
wrote:

>This is why, I presume that when I tried to return the ballot from
>that email adress I was told that there were 'irregular symbols' or
>something similar in it and that the ballot could not be sent.  I can
>try and resend the email (again) to ascertain more detailed
>information about the rejection message  if anyone is interested.

What gave you the error message? Your mailer, the UK Voting system,
something in-between?

>I am now trying to vote again from a more 'reliable' address.  

I would contact the UK Voting people, they can offer advice.

>I bring this to the attention of the committe, because there is a
>(faint) possibility that some potential voters may be disenfranchised
>by blocks on their email addresses when they try to return ballots.

I failed to see where there's a block, posting the actual error you got and
where from might help.

>Organisation because I am fairly confident that those people are the
>*most likely* to have uncompromised and therefore unblocked email
>addresses.  

Most likely out of all of the users of the uk.* hierarchy?  Odd assertion.

>I will be voting from the kororaa domain (if that's allowed - more
>sinister than greenend, perhaps) - I was previously voting from fsnet
>co uk, if this has any bearing on the matter.  I think it is important
>that I bring this to the attention of the committee, anyway. 

I think it's more important to bring it to the attention of UK Voting
personally.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:10:44 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>I have recently tried to vote from my most commonly used email
>address.  I sent a request to the requisite email adress and recieved
>a ballot form in reply.

[snip bit about email harvesting etc]

>This is why, I presume that when I tried to return the ballot from
>that email adress I was told that there were 'irregular symbols' or
>something similar in it and that the ballot could not be sent. 

This looks like something wrong with the return, not the email address
it was sent from.  The reason I say this is that you seem to have
requested a paper from UKV using the same email address used to return
it.  Therefore, if there was something wrong with the 'address' you
wouldn't have got the paper sent to you in the first place.

>I bring this to the attention of the committe, because there is a
>(faint) possibility that some potential voters may be disenfranchised

Note the additional address contained within the ballot paper to
contact the VT in case of any difficulties.  Use that.  It isn't
anything to do with the committee at the present time.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:54:37 +0000, Pedt <"\"@
@\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote:


>The actual rejection message would definitely be of interest. It will 
>likely shed some light on *where* the message is being rejected.

Having now voted (I presume, succesfully) from the kororaa domain, I
tried again from the other server.  The rejection message I recieved
said this: 

"Your email has not been sent because it was rejected by the server.
Please check you have not used any special characters in the address,
subject or body and that you have not attached any blocked file types
(eg .exe)."

>The mail server you are using to send email and the name of your mail 
>client could possibly be useful.

I am using the orange server, the webmail client provided there. 

>One question that might also be usefully answered is: is the rejection 
>notice coming from your email client or is it a separate email saying 
>that your email has bounced?

It's coming from the client.  I've been told several times that Orange
is shit, mind; I've never come across it not allowing me to do
something that is commonly accessible to other email servers before. I
don't get involved in OS/client/browser/penis size wars, usually.

>UKV would definitely be interested and you can contact the VT here:
>Votetaker: Barry Salter <com2k09-queries (at) ukvotes.southie.me.uk>

Is this enough information? 

>>Follow-Up set to unnm only.

In uk.net.news.management, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really>
wrote:

>It's coming from the client.  I've been told several times that Orange
>is shit, mind; I've never come across it not allowing me to do
>something that is commonly accessible to other email servers before. I
>don't get involved in OS/client/browser/penis size wars, usually.

Is the rejection message an e-mail you receive, with headers or something
the client displays when you click send?

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:16:20 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>I forgot to add: FYI, and being a usenet user of some years, I have
>every confidence in those people who were nominated from Chiark.  I am
>not a cyclist, but I am absolutely certain that at least one of those
>nominees will bring a fresher, more modern outlook to usenet should he
>be elected;

Please do tell us which one as both the ones we have experience of
here are about as fresh as a month dead rat and have the interpersonal
skills of Attila the Hun when his piles are playing up.

On 2009-10-30, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
> This is why, I presume that when I tried to return the ballot from
> that email adress I was told that there were 'irregular symbols' or
> something similar in it and that the ballot could not be sent.  I can
> try and resend the email (again) to ascertain more detailed
> information about the rejection message  if anyone is interested.

I maintain the server which hosts the voting system (and I am 
secondary votetaker for the vote), and I am most certainly interested.

I can't think of any way in which something our end would say anything
about "irregular symbols" though.

Could you please forward the entire of (including headers) any bounce
message you have received to me please. The From address of this post
works.

If you have received an error message from your software, as opposed
to a bounce, then it is a problem with your system or your ISP. In
which case, if you forward the exact error message (and what software
you're using) I may be able to help but I can't guarantee it.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:10:44 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
> <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
>
>>Now, this email address was compromised some years ago - it is not on
>>a 'reliable' domain (it is on a domain similar to hotmail), and was
>>used as the source of spam.
>
> Aside: your email address can be used as the source of spam without it
> being compromised.  Header forgery is routine in spammers, and malware
> will commonly pick a random address form someone's address book to use
> as the purported sender of malicious or spam messages.

ITYF Cherry understands this stuff.

Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

> I am absolutely certain that at least one of those nominees will bring a
> fresher, more modern outlook to usenet should he be elected;

Of course you are. And the fact that each one of them has proved to be a
loony doesn't detract from their abilities. Nor does their acting like a
bunch of complete tossers.

>The actual rejection message would definitely be of interest. It will 
>likely shed some light on *where* the message is being rejected.
>
I've already tried to reply to this post once, but it appears to be
not appearing.  I suspect I'm being very fuckwitted.

Anyway, the rejection message says: 

"Your email has not been sent because it was rejected by the server.
Please check you have not used any special characters in the address,
subject or body and that you have not attached any blocked file types
(eg .exe)."

Which looks like a client based thing.  It's an ancient fsnet address
which is now operated through the orange servers. 

>
>Follow-Up set to unnm only.

>The actual rejection message would definitely be of interest. It will 
>likely shed some light on *where* the message is being rejected.

The rejction message says 

"Your email has not been sent because it was rejected by the server.
Please check you have not used any special characters in the address,
subject or body and that you have not attached any blocked file types
(eg .exe)."

This is the third time I have tried to sent a similar post.    I
expect I am being fuckwitted or something, but it is all very strange.
It is a webmail client, and the message is obviously client based. 

>The mail server you are using to send email and the name of your mail 
>client could possibly be useful.

It's an old fsnet address, so run through Orange these days. 


>Follow-Up set to unnm only.

Oh, actually, I should be reading unnm, shouldn't I?  Put it down to
fuckwittery.  Not as used to usenet as I used to be!

In message , at 22:47:26 on 
Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wibbled
>
>>The actual rejection message would definitely be of interest. It will
>>likely shed some light on *where* the message is being rejected.
>
>The rejction message says
>
>"Your email has not been sent because it was rejected by the server.
>Please check you have not used any special characters in the address,
>subject or body and that you have not attached any blocked file types
>(eg .exe)."
>
>This is the third time I have tried to sent a similar post.    I
>expect I am being fuckwitted or something, but it is all very strange.
>It is a webmail client, and the message is obviously client based.

It would seem to be the client at fault somewhere if it's not getting 
out of webmail.
>
>>The mail server you are using to send email and the name of your mail
>>client could possibly be useful.
>
>It's an old fsnet address, so run through Orange these days.
>
Have you snipped the ballot paper you received to just the bits you fill 
in or were you sending all the blurb back as well?  I'm asking as I've 
seen this sort of thing before when Orange have rejected emails for 
having too many lines with odd error messages.

2nd possibility is that the email address you were using as a From: had 
a special character in it and that, of course, would be repeated in the 
body of the ballot paper as the UKV server drops it in automatically 
when it generates your ballot paper.

Can't think of anything else at the moment. As Jon has offered to take a 
look at it might be worth copying and pasting the whole body of what you 
were sending into another client and chucking it in his direction - Jon 
is Secondary VT anyway so it doesn't matter if he sees your vote as 
he'll no doubt already have seen it.
>
>>Follow-Up set to unnm only.
>
>Oh, actually, I should be reading unnm, shouldn't I?  Put it down to
>fuckwittery.  Not as used to usenet as I used to be!

No real problem.

-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

On 2009-10-30, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
> "Your email has not been sent because it was rejected by the server.
> Please check you have not used any special characters in the address,
> subject or body and that you have not attached any blocked file types
> (eg .exe)."

Was this a bounce email you received, or an error message from your
mail client?

If it was a bounce email, it almost certainly contained more
information that you have not provided. If it was an error message,
the problem is with your ISP, not with UKVoting.

>>The mail server you are using to send email and the name of your mail 
>>client could possibly be useful.
>
> I am using the orange server, the webmail client provided there. 

Sorry, can you elaborate on "the orange server"? If I search for
"orange" in the mail logs I just find loads of spam from
Orange-branded mail addresses all over Europe.

>>One question that might also be usefully answered is: is the rejection 
>>notice coming from your email client or is it a separate email saying 
>>that your email has bounced?
>
> It's coming from the client.

In which case it is a problem with your ISP and I'm afraid there is
nothing anyone else can do about it. The mail is not even leaving your
ISP's mail server, no-one else is involved.

>Have you snipped the ballot paper you received to just the bits you fill 
>in or were you sending all the blurb back as well?  I'm asking as I've 
>seen this sort of thing before when Orange have rejected emails for 
>having too many lines with odd error messages.

I snipped the ballot down to the bits I fill in.

>2nd possibility is that the email address you were using as a From: had 
>a special character in it and that, of course, would be repeated in the 
>body of the ballot paper as the UKV server drops it in automatically 
>when it generates your ballot paper.

Nope.  Standard from email that I use for everything else from that
address.

>Can't think of anything else at the moment. As Jon has offered to take a 
>look at it might be worth copying and pasting the whole body of what you 
>were sending into another client and chucking it in his direction - Jon 
>is Secondary VT anyway so it doesn't matter if he sees your vote as 
>he'll no doubt already have seen it.

I'll try to remember to get around to this later today, if that's OK.
I have now voted from another email address, and indicated that it's
me under the 'any other information' section.

>>>Follow-Up set to unnm only.
>>
>>Oh, actually, I should be reading unnm, shouldn't I?  Put it down to
>>fuckwittery.  Not as used to usenet as I used to be!
>
>No real problem.

In MsgID on Tue, 20 Oct 2009
14:30:01 +0100, in uk.net.news.management, '.m' wrote:

>claiming bikeshedding.

FFS; it's *not* a real word; please, don't *you* start!

:-)


There was indeed, once, a *true* usenet cycle. 

Unfortunately, as recently proven, it got stuck in September and hasn't
budged since.

Dave J.

In message , jms 
 wrote:
>Even another poster said "Isn't that a bit childish, Clive? I'd be
>very interested to know the  answer, but I don't know what search
>terms to use."
>
>And indeed, it was childish.

Yes, it was.

For a brief moment I descended to the level of the topic. It was 
incredibly childish trying to threaten the University of Cambridge over 
some minor spat over moderation of a moderated group. Particularly since 
the UofC has no involvement.

It's only ones and zeroes.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                  | Home: 
Mobile: +44 7973 377646             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

jms  wrote:

> Well - I am sorry - but I wasn't actually asking him - and frankly I
> could not give a toss.

Then why did you ask? That was rhetorical BTW, I know that the only
reasons that you ask questions are your feeble attempts to create an
argument or to browbeat someone in an attempt to prove your superiority.

> It would not have been too bad if he had perhaps provided a reference
> to the legislation  - but of course the object of the post was to let
> people know how important he was.

I doubt it. In fact I'll point out that you're a liar in this respect.
I've known (of) Clive for a long time. He's remarkably free of ego in
this respect.

Your tantrum is your predictable response each time you realise that
you've blundered into a situation that you don't understand or where you
are made to look as daft as you are. I can predict that there'll be
another excursion of toys from the perambulator very soon.

In article , Cherry
Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> writes

>I bring this to the attention of the committe, because there is a
>(faint) possibility that some potential voters may be disenfranchised
>by blocks on their email addresses when they try to return ballots.

If you could be bothered to read the extensive, clearly written
instructions included with your ballot, you will discover that if your
vote is accepted, you will receive an email saying so.

So your worries of disenfranchisation are foundless.

-- 
(\__/)   
(='.'=)  Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(")  http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:54:53 +0000, Mike Tomlinson 
wrote:

>>I bring this to the attention of the committe, because there is a
>>(faint) possibility that some potential voters may be disenfranchised
>>by blocks on their email addresses when they try to return ballots.
>
>If you could be bothered to read the extensive, clearly written
>instructions included with your ballot, you will discover that if your
>vote is accepted, you will receive an email saying so.
>
>So your worries of disenfranchisation are foundless.

Jesus.  Way to encourage somebody back into participation.  I did read
the ballot, several times, thanks.  

I've got to get around to sending the headers to the votetaker as
there is probably a problem with that web client, as we have already
ascertained.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:25:42 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>I've got to get around to sending the headers to the votetaker as
>there is probably a problem with that web client, as we have already
>ascertained.

Did you get a round tuit?

Good to get these things cleared up.

.m wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:25:42 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
> <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
> 
>> I've got to get around to sending the headers to the votetaker as
>> there is probably a problem with that web client, as we have already
>> ascertained.
> 
> Did you get a round tuit?
> 
> Good to get these things cleared up.
> 
A round tuit (and several e-mails) was obtained, and the short answer 
appears to be that the Orange webmail client is b0rked.

Either that or it's attempting to connect directly to the UKV MX machine 
and barfing when it gets the greylist "back off" response.

Cheers,

Barry

-- 
Barry Salter, bsalter (at) ukvoting (dot) org (dot) uk

DISCLAIMER: The above is my personal opinion, and does not necessarily
reflect the opinion of UKVoting as a whole.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:33:01 +0000, Barry Salter
 wrote:

>A round tuit (and several e-mails) was obtained, and the short answer 
>appears to be that the Orange webmail client is b0rked.
>
>Either that or it's attempting to connect directly to the UKV MX machine 
>and barfing when it gets the greylist "back off" response.

Are all parties therefore happy, following 
Message-ID: 
That there is no issue, as suspected, with UKV?

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:33:01 +0000, Barry Salter
 wrote:

>A round tuit (and several e-mails) was obtained

Yeah.  Sorry about that.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:11:09 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:33:01 +0000, Barry Salter
> wrote:
>
>>A round tuit (and several e-mails) was obtained
>
>Yeah.  Sorry about that.

So, my previous question:

Are all parties therefore happy, following 
Message-ID: 
That there is no issue, as suspected, with UKV?