pmj

Must be a difficult problem to solve...

 

MX Toolbox reports:

 

Connecting to 67.227.191.115

SendSMTPCommand: Timeout waiting for response after 15 seconds.

LookupServer 15609ms

 

as well as:

 

SMTP Banner Check: Reverse DNS does not match SMTP Banner

SMTP TLS: Warning - Does not support TLS.

SMTP Transaction Time: 15.438 seconds - Not good! on Transaction Time

Thanks for letting us know, and for your efforts to get this sorted!

Anything... please?

Any word from tech support? The MX Toolbox website still reports "Unable to connect after 15 seconds," which suggests the mailserver is down, or unreachable due to firewall rules, or something similar.

It seems like the mailserver is still having troubles. MX Toolbox reports

 

Network Tools: DNS,IP,Email

 

 

Hope this can be solved quickly. Thanks!

E-mails are pouring in, so it seems the problem has been solved. Thanks!

Hi Sandy, do you have an update on this issue? Thanks!

Hello,

 

It seems that the photo.net SMTP server is not available. E-mails are not being delivered and MX Toolbox reports that it fails to connect.

 

Connecting to 67.227.191.115

9/9/2019 4:34:23 AM Connection attempt #1 - Unable to connect after 15 seconds. [15.02 sec]

LookupServer 15016ms

Could you fix this, please? Thanks!

It seems to be fixed, because lots of e-mails have been coming in again. Thanks!

That's good to hear!

This has happened before, and was usually fixed pretty quickly once admin was notified.

 

And the problem appears to have returned: the photo.net mail server is refusing connections, according to MX Toolbox:

 

Test Result SMTP Connect Failed To Connect

 

 

Admin: can you look into this? Thanks!

E-mails are arriving again! Thanks you for fixing this issue, much appreciated!

No change yet: e-mails sent to my Gmail account arrive within one minute, but e-mails sent to my photo.net address (which is an alias forwarding to Gmail) seem to be stuck in traffic somewhere. Go admin team, go! Hope you'll be able to solve it quickly.

After sending an email from my work address to my photo.net address, I received this message:

 

Server at photo.net (67.227.191.115) returned '400 4.4.7 Message delayed'

13-3-2019 23:52:53 - Server at photo.net (67.227.191.115) returned '451 4.4.397 Error communicating with target host. -> 421 4.2.1 Unable to connect -> SocketTimedout: Socket error code 10060'

 

Perhaps it will help solve this issue.

The photo.net mail server (mail.photo.net) is not working properly. E-mails sent to my photo.net address are not delivered and mxtoolbox.com reports a time-out when running its SMTP test:

 

Connecting to 67.227.191.115

3/14/2019 1:17:09 AM Connection attempt #1 - Unable to connect after 15 seconds. [15.05 sec]

 

I think the problems started on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning. I've been using my photo.net e-mail address for ages and would really like it to start working again.

 

Could you look into this and fix it? Thanks!

The photo.net mail server (mail.photo.net) is not working properly. E-mails sent to my photo.net address are not delivered and mxtoolbox.com reports a time-out when running its SMTP test:

 

Connecting to 67.227.191.115

11/29/2018 2:36:06 PM Connection attempt #1 - Unable to connect after 15 seconds. [15.19 sec]

 

I think the problems started on Monday or Tuesday. I know my photo.net address is really just an alias, and it forwards to my Gmail account. Or rather, it used to.

 

I've been using my photo.net e-mail address for ages and would really like it to start working again.

<p>The basis of the POW system has been written 10 years ago -- I guess by Philip Greenspun, or one of his students. I added the nominating and voting code, as well as some extra sanity checks, such as the 13 month time limit. But even that was many years ago. I agree that a revamp would not be a bad idea, when budget and programmers' schedules allow for it.</p>

<p>When a photographer has a picture chosen as POW, he or she is sent a congratulatory e-mail. So it is a surprise, particularly so for people who aren't on-line every day. Posting a photo on this site means running the risk of having it featured on the front page.</p>

<p>For the other 4M pictures to stand a chance, we would need some tools for the Elves to notice them. (Other than to "simply" browse all uploads. Or to pick whichever image gets the highest ratings, which would be virtually equal to letting the average photo.net rater determine the new POW.)</p>

<p>Fred: I am not so sure if we can save a copy of each Photograph of the Week, so the photographer won't be able to delete or replace it. Perhaps the Terms of Use do allows us to do this, but IANAL and I would have to ask Josh to look into this (from more than one angle, I'd say).<br>

I think this problem does not occur very often and when it does, we should perhaps just move onto the next picture. Yes, it is somewhat sad for those who put in tme to offer a constructive comment.</p>

 

<p>Peter: I don't think Mary has been replaced. I agree she's a great moderator.</p>

<p>Pnina, Gordon: there is a simple protection against over-f(l)avoring photographers. A photo cannot be nominated for POW if the photographer has had a photo selected in the past 13 months. This has been in place for many years now.</p>

<p>The Elves have no special tools for making their choices, which means they need to browse the gallery and forums just like everyone else, looking for candidates. So while there are 4M pictures to choose from, photographers will need to work on their 'visibility' if they want their pictures to have a chance at being chosen.</p>

<p>The Photograph of the Week is chosen by the Elves, who are members of the photo.net website. Currently, their only instruction is to pick "an interesting photo" for discussion. An Elf cannot nominate one of his or her own pictures and we trust them not to chose friends' photos. </p>

<p>Each week we collect a bunch of photos this way and a voting round amongst all 15 or so Elves determines the next photo to be published. The Elves are not aware of the other Elves' identities. I have no clue how long they spend fussing over their nominations or votes. We originally started with a "why this was chosen" text to help start discussion, but this has turned out to be troublesome at times.</p>

<p>We specifically chose the Elves from members who have been around for a while and who appear to be knowledgeable, able to write a decent critique etc. The idea is to go beyond the pretty picture, or at least as often as possible.</p>

<p>I guess the POW forum could use more moderation to keep discussion on track.</p>

<p>35mm, medium or large format film? Willing to load them one at a time, or is a batch feeder required?</p>

<p>For 35mm, 4 slides at a time, I'm a happy user of the Konica-Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II 5400. Roughly 30 minutes for 4 slides, including blowing off dust, inserting them in the slide holder; highest resolution, 16 bit TIFF, dust removal option on.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure this model is now obsolete, but you might be able to find a used one in good condition.</p>

<p>Jeff: yes, saving as TIFF is the safer approach, just in case you do need to re-open, edit and save a file multiple times.</p>

<p>Try a Panasonic LX3. The minor differences between that camera and the Leica may just solve all your problems.</p>

<p>John, I understand! I also think ads placed over the actual content of a page are very annoying. I'm happy that you reported it.</p>

<p>I merely wanted to point out that installing ad blocker software, as suggested by Rich, is only a short term solution.</p>

<p>I guess Rich's suggestion makes sense: if everybody blocks the ads, nobody will see them. The advertisers won't make any money and as a result, the ads are likely to disappear, solving the problem once and for all. Sadly, photo.net will probably go down as well.</p>

<p>Seriously, the site needs advertising money to survive. Reporting inappropriate ads is great (thanks!) but suggesting that visitors block them really doesn't help the site in the long run.</p>