From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

corrected the reply


Template:
Host: mailrelay
From: anonymous@anonymous.com
Chain: middleman,*,dizum; copies=3;
To: mail2news@neodome.net
Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Neodome Check Without S-P-A-M Word

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On 24 Aug 2025, Remi <dream@remi.invalid> posted some news:28e5a582ec5ec10ca6a91f212ce98eb2@dizum.com:

corrected the reply

What if it's not Neodome doring this?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Il 25/08/2025 11:24, anon ha scritto:

What if it's not Neodome doring this

ok mail2news@dizum.com

Using omnimix is rCirCicomplicated compared to the simplicity of QSL



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

In article <108hiuj$j1vv$2@solani.org> ignore wrote:

Using omnimix is ??complicated compared to the simplicity of QSL

Is that the reason why there are so many frustrated qsl users here who
post their failing message delivery templates hoping to get them fixed?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 14:41:33 +0000, Anonymous <nobody@yamn.paranoici.org> wrote:

In article <108hiuj$j1vv$2@solani.org> ignore wrote:

Using omnimix is ??complicated compared to the simplicity of QSL

Is that the reason why there are so many frustrated qsl users here who
post their failing message delivery templates hoping to get them fixed?

qsl does work when templates are set correctly and stats are up to date,
and usl users have for many years posted templates that work to a.p.a-s

the complainers, obfuscators, troublemakers (militarized, alphabet soup)
troll farm operatives live in a completely separated, compartmentalized,
"need to know" environment from the outside world, like star trek "borg"
(and a.i. has become so advanced, they're indistinguishable from people)
so it's the same sectarian principle, liars lie, garbage in, garbage out . . .

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=garbage+im%2C+garbage+out&ia=web&assist=true

Garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) is a concept in computer science that means the >quality of output is determined by the quality of input; if flawed or poor- >quality data is provided, the results will also be flawed. This principle >emphasizes the importance of accurate and reliable data in programming and >decision-making processes. Wikipedia TechTarget
Definition of Garbage In, Garbage Out
Garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) is a principle in computer science and data >processing. It states that the quality of output is determined by the quality of
input. If flawed or poor-quality data is input into a system, the resulting >output will also be flawed or of low quality.
Historical Context
The term "garbage in, garbage out" was first recorded in 1957, but it was >popularized by IBM programmer George Fuechsel in the early 1960s. He used it to
emphasize that computers process the data they are given; if that data is bad, >the results will be bad.
Applications of GIGO
GIGO is relevant in various fields, including:
Computer Science: Poor input data leads to incorrect program outputs.
Machine Learning: Models trained on biased or incomplete data yield biased
results.
Decision-Making: Inaccurate data can lead to poor decisions in business and
policy-making.
Types of Garbage Input
Common types of poor-quality input include:
Incorrect data (errors in data collection)
Incomplete data (missing information)
Outliers (data points that differ significantly from others)
Irrelevant data (not applicable to the situation)
Understanding GIGO is crucial for ensuring accurate and reliable outcomes in any
data-driven process.

[end quoted "search assist"]

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On Mon, 08/25/2025 14:41:33 +0000, Anonymous wrote:

In article <108hiuj$j1vv$2@solani.org> ignore wrote:

Using omnimix is ??complicated compared to the simplicity of QSL

Is that the reason why there are so many frustrated qsl users here who
post their failing message delivery templates hoping to get them fixed?

Using OMNIMIX is easy whereas developing this outstanding piece
of software must have been extraordinarily complicated. So I'm
grateful that I don't have to know what's going on under the hood,
as it steadily does its job without ever bothering me in any way.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

There's nothing wrong with the templates themselves usually.

You cannot do good problem determination on QSL templates posted because
you cannot see how the SMTP hosts and Poxies are set up.

Based on the errors / symptoms in well over half the cases, either the
proxy settings are incorrect or the SMTP host isn't properly configured to work with the outgoing SMTP host server. You can't see that in a
template. When you try and explain it to them here or in some other
group(s), they want to argue about a single dropdown and click setting
change. They didn't follow directions or use QSL help.

In some cases uses are trying to use old QS template formats - which will
work in the majority cases, excepting those servers which require TLS,
which is where QSL has some issues and it must be manually set in the SMTP host setting.

QSL doesn't work well with MS based SMTP servers either, it was only
tested with a single Linux SMTP server during development so it doesn't
handle closed connections properly in most cases. That is why it locks up after the first chain is sent when using MS SMTP servers. It does work
and work reliably. Start with a minimum config and chain, you'll figure
it out when using them.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2