LazyLeopard

Likewise. Annoyed, even. Have HTML if you must, but a decent plain-text with links that can be cut-n-pasted is absolutely essential for some of us. Yeah, right. </SARCASM> Someone clueless, presumably... They can't even be bothered to do the HTML properly (with a multipart/mixed plain-text alternative)...

Aye. You can substitute any of the various plain-text email/news programs in place of "mutt". From a plain-text reading point of view, the important thing is to have the actual URL in any link's text part, so that it can (if necessary) be copied and pasted (or eyeballed and typed!) into a browser somewhere... A link that prints (in plain text) simply as (for example) "Log" isn't a lot of use. ...and I still preferred the old [TAGGED] subject lines, but thanks for at least slightly reducing the length of the unnecessary guff.

Just adding my voice to the chorus. As far as I'm concerned HTML emails are not a facelift. They've effectively stripped everything useful from the text of the email, and as I read my email using a plain-text reader, all the (helpfully concealed) links are no use at all. Please can we at least have the option of plain-text emails. Thanks.

Indeed. I, personally, would consign SPF (or at least SPF FAIL) to the bit-bucket, as it causes more problems than it solves. My ISP is not following best practice, and is being stubbornly clueless about non-sender-rewriting forwarders. My forwarder won't do sender re-writing. I posted here mainly to give other folk struck by the same problem something to find... Thanks for your time.

My ISP has recently started using a Microsoft Exchange server in place of a previous server which actually worked. Since the change-over I've noticed that some emails sent from geocaching.com and re-directed to my ISP via an email domain re-direction service have not been getting through. As far as I can tell, the problem is partly because geocaching uses a FAIL ("reject this email") SPF record like this: geocaching.com TXT "v=spf1 ip4:66.150.167.155 ip4:66.150.167.157 ip4:66.150.167.158 ip4:207.32.184.190 include:_spf.google.com -all" My ISP sees the "-all" (which means "reject this email"), notes that the email is coming from the re-directing service instead of from one of the listed IPs, and rejects it. This is not good. I've submitted a bug report to the re-directing service, on the off-chance that there's something they should be doing but aren't. Other than that, I've no idea how else to get round it without either getting emails sent to my ISP directly (which is a work-around I've implemented for now, but would prefer not to use long-term) or by changing my ISP (which would be a pain)... I note that big email-generating sites tend not to use "-all" (FAIL), but rather "~all" (SOFTFAIL) or "?all" (NEUTRAL).

Indeed. The HTML format is useless for me. If I can't get a plain-text version (with humanly-readable links) then I might as well un-subscribe (though, as the unsubscribe link is not a humanly readable link...)

Some of the notification emails I get are being truncated. I'd expect to see something like this: Sometimes all I see is this: ...and sometimes I only see this:

It allows you to run the PQ, but does nothing to help you edit or delete it... Has the "Server Error in '/' Application. Queue empty." problem been reported to the GC.com maintainers?

Hmmm... One of my routes gets previewed as if it was several thousand miles from where it should be, and another takes a strange detour across the Channel to Le Havre. There's no way I can delete the PQs that got created when I got the error spew like the block in my earlier post above, and I can't delete the (presumably corrupted) route until the PQs have gone...

I've also seen this with routes uploaded as GPX files. I uploaded three routes a few days ago, and tried to create a PQ from the first of them. I've now got four dud PQs in my list. Luckily I hadn't set them to run any day soon, and they're the only ones in my PQ list which have never run... When I try to edit them the error spew I get looks like this Server Error in '/' Application. Queue empty. Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code. Exception Details: System.InvalidOperationException: Queue empty. Source Error: An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below. Stack Trace: [InvalidOperationException: Queue empty.] System.Collections.Queue.Dequeue() +110 Groundspeak.Web.UserRoutes.UserRoutePoints.EncodeSignedNumber(Decimal num) +269 Groundspeak.Web.UserRoutes.UserRoutePoints.EncodeLatLong() +339 Geocaching.UI.URQuery.ShowQueryInfo() +711 Geocaching.UI.URQuery.Page_UserLoggedIn(Object sender, EventArgs e) +781 Geocaching.UI.WebformBase.IsLoggedIn() +1315 Geocaching.UI.URQuery.Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e) +515 System.Web.UI.Control.OnLoad(EventArgs e) +67 System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +35 System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain() +750 Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.2300; ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.2300

Ideally coins would come in identically-numbered pairs, one for the owner to keep and one to send off on travels. It would, of course, do nasty things to the prices...

I'd much rather see a one-line log than no log at all. I don't bother reading a hidden message into the length of a log either. (I'd expect the log to state clearly if there was a problem with the cache.) Conversely, if I write a short log myself, it's usually because my mind's gone blank.

I've hunted a couple recently where the hint was unhelpful. At one, the hint, when decrypted, read thus: Will consider adding some hint here if there are more than 2 DNFs. There had been quite a few finds, but last time I checked, four folks had logged DNFs without subsequent finds... Then there was the hint that said: four metres from the main footpath under some logs and leaves. Looks helpful, but the cache turned out to be more than 20 metres from the footpath. Oh, and I just spotted a new relatively nearby cache which contains the text: As the puzzle is fairly easy I think, I will not be giving any hints for the moment Immediately under that there's a hint. When decoded, it reads: It's too easy However, the cache is marked as 3.5 difficulty, so clearly it isn't too easy...

Ive got a Windows Mobile 5 based PDA/phone, a T-Mobile MDA Vario. It's a compromise to cut down the number of bits of kit I have to carry, and the compromise shows. It's the first phone I've had that actually needed re-booting (by removing and replacing the battery) from time to time. The only other kit-count-reduction compromise I could have tried was a PDA/GPSr, and none of those seem to be even half-way weather-resistant.

Geocahes are just waypoints with the type set to "Geocache".

Some folks don't log finds either. For a cache owner I say that's almost as frustrating as folks not logging DNFs...

Yes, but folks vanish for all sorts of reasons, leaving caches orphaned. Seems to me it'd be a good idea to get interested folks out to caches that appear to be orphaned, and to ones which have been archived if there's evidence they may still be in place, if only as a way of clearing up after ourselves. I guess there may already be a fair bit of this cleaning-up going on informally anyway.

Havn't hidden any new ones in quite a while myself, partly because I've not been doing much cache hunting either (it's taken me almost six years to get to 100 finds). Way back when there were fewer than a couple of hundred caches in the entire UK, some folks still got upset when other folks hid "too many" or "too few". These days, with so many caches out there, it's probably a good idea to find a reasonable number before hiding your first, though. Who's to say whether "a reasonable number" is nearer 5, 50 or 500...

Aye. You can't easily take notes on a phone-PDA while you're holding the phone to your ear. It's a trade-off between things to carry and convenience. When my old Palm 105 died and I went looking for a replacement I decided I'd either have to get a phone-PDA or a GPSr-PDA. None of the latter seemed sufficiently rugged, so I went for the former, and got one of the afore-mentioned T-Mobile Varios. It's the first phone I've ever had that needed re-booting fairly frequently. And I mean take-the-battery-out re-booting...

That's sad news. Condolences to Mark's family. Rick

Ah. I'd guess the timeout must be short (no more than a few minutes) then. Fair enough. We'll see what happens when it's updated. Cheers.

Last couple of days I've found I can only get to the "My Cache Page" once. On subsequent attempts I instead get the "You are logged in as ..." page, and there's no way to get back to the "My Cache Page" other than by closing and re-starting my browser. I've also found I'm being dumped back at "You are logged in as ..." when I try to do things like adding a cache to my watch list or visiting my watched caches list. I've seen this problem using Netscape 4.79 on Windows 2000 (yes, it's old, but it's the "company standard" so we're stuck with it), with Netscape 7.0 on Solaris, and with Miozilla 1.6 on Linux. In all cases cookies and JavaScript are enabled.

Can get kinda confusing when a cache fits into more than one category. Anyone for a multi-virtual-webcam-event cache gd&r

Almost, I'm tempted to hunt only virtual and micro caches.... I would like to see an (optional) automated visit-validation challenge/response option on the geocaching site. The cache owner could enter a challenge question (or series of questions) and the required answer(s) and the site would accept a found-it log only if the answers were correct. This could be used on any cache type if the owner so chose.

quote:These were the only ones that came out!Bah! One of those black frames must've been me, then.... Oh well.