Hmm. I've got four email addresses from different companies, and none of
them seem to match their SMTP server's ident with the domain of the email
address!  Ah well.  I have posted it in the binaries group now.

--Bill Sparrow--

Bill,

<< Hmm. I've got four email addresses from different companies, and none of
them seem to match their SMTP server's ident with the domain of the email
address! >>

This condition indicates to us that the email is possibly being sent via a
relay, and we don't want any emails from any relay servers, period.  I know
it is difficult for you to understand, but we get an enormous amount of
spam/attempted spam, and we have no choice but to be very proactive in what
emails we do an do not accept.  One of the conditions that we have is that
the sending mail server identify itself as being a part of the same domain
as the emails From: header.  Otherwise, the header is forged or the email is
being relayed.  If we started accepting forged headers again, we would be
inundated with spam.   Since the beginning of the year, we've blocked over
21,000 emails that fail our filtering criteria (blacklist, forged headers,
etc), along with over 13,000 emails that have been quarantined due to being
sent from unknown sources (non-whitelist emails).

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

My latest favourite is the "stock news" ones that consist of a single graphic holding all the text. I'm thinking of altering TMaN to bomb any emails like that but I do have some nutty friends who would send such an email.

Roy Lambert

Hi Tim,

I was not complaining about the actions you have taken to block spam!  
More power to you for having found a way to do so!  It was more a moan
about the ISPs and other outfits I happen to be using, that none of them
appear to have an SMTP server that identifies itself with a name that
matches the domain name I use to access said server, let alone matching
the domain name of the email address I am sending from!

--Bill Sparrow--

Bill,

<< I was not complaining about the actions you have taken to block spam!
More power to you for having found a way to do so!  It was more a moan about
the ISPs and other outfits I happen to be using, that none of them appear to
have an SMTP server that identifies itself with a name that matches the
domain name I use to access said server, let alone matching the domain name
of the email address I am sending from! >>

Ahh, my apologies for getting a little antsy.  Frankly, I'd love to do away
with all of the filtering, etc. that we have to do, but apparently it's more
important that some shmuck rip people off selling penis enlargement pills.


On to the subject at hand, however.  I looked over your project, and the
bottom line is:  don't do that.  What you're doing is calling the master
table's Post method while it is in the middle of a Post already.  The
sequence goes like this:

Master.Edit;
Detail.Edit;
Master.Post  ----> Detail.CheckBrowseMode ---> Detail.Post ---> Master.Post
<<<< This is a problem

By the time DBISAM gets to the second Master.Post, the master table is no
longer in dsEdit mode, so DBISAM ends up appending the same record with the
same BLOB offsets, etc.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

> and the bottom line is:  don't do that.
Fair enough!

--Bill Sparrow--

Bill,

<< Fair enough! >>

Actually, I need to amend that.  I did find a way around this by explicitly
ignoring any Post attempts when the state is not dsEdit or dsInsert, and
this will be in the next build.  So, you will be able to "do that" in the
next build without any adverse results.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

A bit of defensive programming to cope with people like me eh!

Cheers Tim.

--Bill Sparrow--

Bill,

<< A bit of defensive programming to cope with people like me eh! >>



I'm sure other folks have, or will, try the same thing.  There really isn't
anything in the design of the the TDataSet events that scream "don't do
that".

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com