Mail mystery solved...

I got up at 4 am because I woke up and couldn't fall asleep again. I fired up my computer and decided to download the Trinity Rescue Kit, to see if it can be of any help in diagnosing a problem with one of the two "guest kiosk" computers downstairs in the lobby. While I was at it, I checked my email to see if there was any response from A2 (which hosts my work domain). There was. The message read:

Because you have extra MX entries could you please make sure that the primary domain in the mx record is supposed to be galexi.com?

Maybe it was the early hour, I don't know, but this message didn't make much sense to me.

See, soon after switching hosting companies, I added my webmail provider's mail exchanger servers to the MX records for my work domain at A2. In any event, as I didn't really grok the message, I responded with:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The MX entries for galexi.com are:

	0	galexi.com
->	5	in1.smtp.messagingengine.com
	10	in2.smtp.messagingengine.com

Where the second line has a graphic at its start that says "to" with an arrow pointing at the contents of the second line.

Can you provide more detail in your instruction? Thank you.

While I was waiting, I played around with some of the other features of the A2 control panel having to do with email and tried to understand what was going on. For some reason, between language on the configuration page that said

Changing your MX to something besides galexi.com will prevent us from managing your mail. Your email will no longer be sent to this server.

and messages that read, for example,

The MX entry for galexi.com has been changed to in1.smtp.messagingengine.com (priority 5) This server will NOT serve as a mail exchanger for your domain's mail.

(where I interpreted "this server" in both messages to mean A2's server), as well as that little graphic pointing at the second of three MX record entries (which I thought meant mail would be sent there, instead of to the first item in the list), I was convinced that, having adding the MX records per my webmail provider's instructions, the job was done.

So what was the message from A2's tech support trying to say, I wondered? Why would I want galexi.com to be the primary domain?

While waiting for a response from the tech, I decided to rearrange the priorities of the records, and in doing so, ended up (temporarily) with four entries for my domain and guess what? The little graphic moved to between the second and third entries! It wasn't pointing to the second entry at all! Here's my next message to tech support:

It would appear that the "to" graphic with the right-pointing arrow merely is centered vertically in the table cell, so it only appears to point to the second line when there are three lines in the cell. That would mean that the primary domain in the MX record is already galexi.com (with a priority of 0), no?

I checked how much of the 250 MB "quota" I had used for my account. It had risen from 2.37 MB yesterday to 2.44 MB today. I added that information to my email, suggested that it indicated receipt and storage of my mail on the A2 server (the A2 webmail didn't work, for some reason, when I tried it yesterday, which I ascribed to the general problem of mail not working), and sent the message off, letting the tech know that I would be experimenting with rearranging priorities, in case he started working on my ticket and found the configuration to be different from what I had stated in the earlier email.

A few minutes later, I sent the following email:

Changing the priority of galexi.com away from 0 appears to do the trick.

Upon rereading your instruction, I believe you are trying to say something along those lines (i.e., if you want mail to go to the messagingengine MX entries, galexi.com should not be your primary MX record).

Pardon my curiosity, but are you based in the United States?

In retrospect, I probably could have asked about the guy's native language in a more direct and more tactful way (his name suggests he is German), but hey! what's done is done and I think I've asked politely.

Mail works now. I think. YAAY!

Back to sleep. I'm the "on call" interpreter today, so my job is to hang out at the hotel and field hot issues. Here's keeping my fingers crossed.

Cheers...

Oh, grammar!

While translating an introductory text written in Russian about personal computers, I could only marvel - during the odd moments when I have personal time available to do this - at the number of faults in grammar and composition in the text, and I'm no native speaker!

Sloppiness on the part of technicians who have been impressed into the role of writer is legion, in any language, it seems. In fact, it got me to thinking of my attempt at getting a job, back in the day, at Macmillan Publishers, of which I have written previously. I wonder how much different my life would be now if I hadn't failed that editing test? Then again, one might ask the same question of any event perceived as more or less important, right?

As far as the translation is concerned, there arises the classic question: do you "fill in the blanks" and write a translation that is lucid, clear, and of demonstrably higher quality than the original? Or do you try to reproduce the original, warts and all, peppering the text with "[sic]" in places where the going gets particularly nasty?

Both are hard, and sometimes, the second alternative is harder!

Cheers...

If this doesn't grab you, are you alive?

Over the past few years, it seems there have been a number of discoveries made in astronomy that should have had a greater impact on humanity's view of the universe than they appear to have had. I'm specifically thinking of the discovery of the first planet to revolve around a star other than Sol, and more recently, of extrastellar planets that show signs of water.

Maybe our sense of wonder has been deadened by our decades-long romance with science fiction. One way to find out, I suppose, would be to hit a library and see what kind of ruckus - if any - occurred on the occasion of the discovery of Pluto back just 78 years ago.

In any event, news keeps coming out that point in the general direction of there once having been water and life on Mars. Water was confirmed just a few days ago by data from the Phoenix lander. Then yesterday, I saw this:

"The White House has been alerted by NASA about plans to make an announcement soon on major new Phoenix lander discoveries concerning the "potential for life" on Mars, scientists tell Aviation Week & Space Technology.

Sources say the new data do not indicate the discovery of existing or past life on Mars. Rather the data relate to habitability--the "potential" for Mars to support life--at the Phoenix arctic landing site, sources say.

The data are much more complex than results related NASA's July 31 announcement that Phoenix has confirmed the presence of water ice at the site."

I'm guessing the news will be something along the lines of the soil on Mars being physically and chemically well-suited for growth of terrestrial plants.

Your guess?

Cheers...