Computing desk
< September 1	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 2

man pages

Why are man pages a thing, but not woman pages? 69.5.123.82 (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The w.o. man pages are there. You just can't read them since they are write-only as the name implies. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I have seen some write-only man pages as well. (Looking at you, find.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you use gnu software, w.o. man means "without man." It is an alternative documentation browser that does not require man. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to steal this joke. In case op is serious, or someone doesn't understand the question, man is short for manual. --TZubiri (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a clever joke. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

man page
woman page

Made illustration more relevant. --174.88.168.23 (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page explain why and also other problems reated to the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

PS:This page is controversial because there are people that dont consider it to be a thing.

2804:7F2:689:ACEB:D82:812E:3BFB:5250 (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Bound in Circuit Complexity

I asked a question here about finding a lower bound in the area of circuit complexity, and it has not been done, so I would appreciate if you answer me here\ there, thank you! 77.127.99.167 (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMTP 554

I tried to send two emails last night, each to multiple people by individual email addresses. Almost immediately, I got back from the SMTP server:

     Subject:	Weather
     Sent:	9/2/2020 12:26 AM

The following recipient(s) cannot be reached:

     ABCD on 9/2/2020 12:26 AM
           554 6.6.0 Error sending message for delivery.

     WXYZ on 9/2/2020 12:26 AM
           554 6.6.0 Error sending message for delivery.

followed by a listing of the other names of the intended recipients. (Obviously, in the above, I've replaced real names with strings.) That is, I got back a 554 on every person I was trying to send to.

The other email had the same result, again with the list of names being replied to being the length of my original list.

I am using Outlook with Windows 10, and an SMTP server outbound. I haven't had this problem in the past. I stopped the Outlook task on my computer and restarted Outlook, and it transmitted the message normally the second time. So my question is hardly urgent, because the workaround that I tried, restarting the task, worked. My question is whether this is something I should know or do something about. Google shows that SMTP 554 is sort of a vague error. I found: SMTP error 554 is one of the more vague error codes, but is typically caused by the receiving server seeing something in the From or To headers that it doesn't like. This can be caused by a spam trap identifying your machine as a relay, or as a machine not trusted to send mail from your domain.

Well? Does anyone know more than that, which is basically that it didn't work?

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, it's hard to say exactly what's wrong. but RFC3463 refers to error X.6.0 as an "Other or undefined media error", meaning there's an generic issue with the content of your message that means it cannot be sent, so it probably is a spam filter of some kind (see page 11 of RFC3463). Have you tried amending the content of your message, or checking server logs (if they're accessible)? Ed talk! 00:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you might've come into issue with rate limiting. You should probably try using the blind carbon-copy functionality (Bcc) to send emails to multiple people in future, or use your own email server if you can as you won't run into issues in those cases. Ed talk! 00:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Ed6767. I don't think that the content of the message had anything to do with it, since restarting Outlook solved the problem. My guess at this point is that my copy of Outlook was corrupted somehow and was messing up the messages somehow. Maybe "Outlook got corrupted and had to be restarted" is the only explanation that there is. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mention running my own email server. Is there documentation I can consult about that? I don't think that it is necessary, but am just asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, it's quite complex, and probably not the greatest idea but you can try a basic webhost if you like, many of these include email (the privacy of which I cannot guarantee), or do a quick google for "how to run your own email server" and follow one of the tutorials that's best suited for you as there's many out there Ed talk! 01:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]