Posts made by MrMazda

While this is plausible, I do not understand how a co-relation somehow proves a causal link. Do you by chance have a reference to the original source for further reading?

Call me skeptical if you must, but there are a few things that came to my mind when I read the article.

The first and biggest thing that comes to my mind is how one thing causes another. Simply put, while they may find a co-relation, I fail to understand how a co-relation implies a causal link. For example, you can establish a co-relation between drinking an espresso and being obese, but that doesn't mean that drinking an espresso inexorably leads to becoming obese. Granted, I get the connection for obvious reasons, but some of the other references seem a little suspicious to me.

One such example is the link between the T cells (actually referred to as CD4 or CD8 cells) and obeasity just doesn't seem plausible to me. The fact that the original publisher refers to them as "T" cells only makes me wonder about how much scientific credibility that the study actually has…. Just sayin'

I know that not many people here will likely know anything about hosting a mail server, but I'm hoping that someone can fill in the blanks as Google doesn't seem to offer any assistance. At first, I ran into similar issues when Google first rolled out SPF record checking, which luckily, wasn't that hard to implement. I am now having similar issues. I cannot seem to find any rhyme, reason, or pattern to it, so I'm asking here in case someone has any experience with dealing with slime balls like Google.

The problem is that I seem to randomly have email messages from my server going to Google just randomly rejected. Every time this happens, I get the following error in my SMTP log:

550-5.7.1 [2002:45c4:af22:0:71be:3093:5a2e:f70912] Our system has detected 550-5.7.1 that this message is likely unsolicited mail. To reduce the amount of 550-5.7.1 spam sent to Gmail, this message has been blocked. Please visit 550-5.7.1 http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=188131 for 550 5.7.1 more information. x4si5477692igl.58 - gsmtp (in reply to end of DATA command)

As per what that page recommends, I have done every last bloody step in the process I have added the rules to Procmail just in case, and I have double checked my SPF records, which indicate that they pass. I have also gone as far as to setup a DKIM policy and have published the corresponding key in my DNS records. Despite all of this, I still get messages bounced back as "undeliverable" with this precise error.

Can anyone shead some light on why Google is pulling this kind of fuckery, and what I can do to make Google co-operate with my email services?

This may not be of much use to you directly, however I happen to have a couple of solutions to this….

The first is installing a NAS, which often comes built into some wireless routers. This will allow you to store the content on a virtual network path, which then allows you to control who has access to it. The other option is my server. I have stuff on there that I want to keep hidden from people and do not want to store directly on my laptop. This gives me an easy link into the server through the network, but ensures that the content that I don't want to be visible can be ruled out of the question through the use of username & password authentication. This way, people like my room mate can access the more public shared content on the server, but gets an Access Denied error when he attempts to open any of the shares that contain files that I do not wish others to view (such as porn).

While I may not know of a proxy service that's available in China, I do know of a few VPN services, which will render the same end result in the sense that they will make you appear to the internet to be using an IP address from within China. The downfall to most free proxy services is that they're not an anonymous proxy, which allows them to reveal your original IP address for tracking purposes, which may be why the connection is being rejected. A VPN (preferably PPTP) on the other hand will not expose your direct IP address in any manner, thus getting around that issue.

I would totally do it with a closetted married guy…... I have many times in the past. My only complaint about closetted married guys is that when they are introduced to a good cock sucker, they tend to blow their load in seconds. It's both sad and kinda cool all at the same time.

While I am not using Truvada as a PrEP drug, nor am I using it for Hep C, I am currently on it. I have been for a few years now. It's part of my regular regime for HIV.

As for your question about the effects and such, I will note one thing. It is true that Truvada when used as a PrEP drug does indeed reduce the risk factors of contracting HIV, however it does come with a few risks…. For example, if the person you are having sex with has a resistance to one of (or both of) the drug compounds found in Truvada (Emtricitabine & Tenofovir), the effectiveness of reducing the chances of infection are greatly reduced.

All that being said, from my personal experience I can tell you that Truvada is NOT a very pleasant drug to be on. One of the most common side effects of Truvada is chronic diarrhea. I unfortunatly happen to be one of the many people who got this side effect and I can say with certainty that it gets to a point where not even Lomotil is strong enough on some days to counter-balance that effect. One of the other most noted effects that Truvada has been known to have on the human body has to do with deteriorating the bone matter in some people, which causes low bone density, and thereby increases the risk of a fracture or a break resulting from something like a fall.

The other caution that I have with Truvada is that it is often most effective when paired with Norvir (Ritonavir), which acts as a booster to other medications. If this is the case, you must be very careful about what other substances that you put in your body, especially if they're amphetamine based because of the nature of the way that Norvir works when interacting with other medications. If this is the case (as it is with me), this can cause a number of unexpected problems when mixing other substances, including alcohol. That is my only caution to such a regime.

I know that this is kind of late to be posting a reply, but I couldn't help but add in some information that is commonly overlooked.

At this day and age, HIV is not at all what it once was… so the concept of HIV being "not all that bad" isn't entirely a myth. I myself have been living with it for over 5 years and counting now. That being said however, there are also some dangers that need to be taken into acount when assessing the risk factors and the extent of the risk you're willing to take. Too many people do not realize that such risks exist. So in short.... Yes... On one hand, HIV isn't so bad, but on the other hand, it opens the door for a number of potentially serious (if not fatal) issues. I will summarize the more critical ones below....

1) Toxoplasmosis: Toxoplasmosis is a bacteria that is most commonly found in kitty liter and bird droppings. It's main source comes from the consumption of meat (including fish) that has not been fully cooked or frozen. For the average person with a normal immune system, exposure to Toxoplasmosis will resolve itself on its own. That being said however, when Toxoplasmosis bacteria is introduced to HIV, a whole new world of trouble begins. There's an interaction that takes place over time (usually wihin a few months) between Toxoplasmosis and HIV that becomes quite problematic… namely, that it forms a bond with the cells infected with HIV in the blood stream, which are then passed to the brain for the final stages of exposure to begin. Simply put, over time, the combination of the two will literally eat away at the brian, causing regular bodily functions to become quite challenging over time, until it finally eats away at the brain slowly enough to slowly cause a cerebral hemorrhage. During this process, headaches, body ache, fatigue, and chronic pain become more and more of a problem until it literally kills you very slowly. It's actually quite a slow and horrible death. So... Unless you're willing to freeze your steaks or sushi (as two examples) before preparing them, when you're HIV+, eating such foods is quite literally gambling with your own life.

2) Pneumocystis Pneumonia: This is a particularly nasty form of pneumonia as it is, which if untreated has great potential to become fatal. When mixed with HIV, makes the severity of it even worse. More often than not, when this form of Pneumonia is mixed with HIV, it's fatal, and not a pleasant way to die. As it attacks the lungs, it becomes harder and harder to get rid of and can cause some serious and often painfully fatal respritory issues. With a compromised immune system, the mix of the two can cause a complete depletion of the body's CD4 cells, which are most critical to fighting off any kind of virus or bacteria forign to the human body. Once this happens, you then open the door to just about anything to add to the mix, which is part of what makes this combination fatal in most cases.

3) Liver Failure: Sadly, while most of the newer HIV meds on the market are quite effective at surpressing the HIV virus itself as to lead a normal and healthy life, they also are quite hard on the liver. As such, liver failure is a constant concern to anyone living with HIV on the meds. This is part of why blood work is taken so frequently to keep track of what is going on within your body chemistry. One of the worst offenders for this potential threat believe it or not is a drug called Truvada, which is a combination drug that includes both Emtricitabine (200mg) and Tenofovir (300mg). This is just one of many potential problems that these kinds of drugs present. In short, if you're on the HIV meds, you pretty well have to be worried about this possible complication. This obviously can be worsened if you add alcohol to the equation.

4) Chronic Diarrhea: Most people do not realize just how common of a side-effect that this is when using a lot of HIV drugs. As I mentioned in reason 3, Truvada one of the biggest offenders for this. I know this all to well from personal experience. The problem with this comes in whereas the strongest medication for such things available is Lomotil, which is stronger than Immodium. In most cases (such as mine), Lomotil alone is just not enogh to combat this side-effect. In some cases, this can result in moments of incontinence where you're fine one moment, and the next, your ass just explodes out of nowhere. This can be particularly embareassing if you're out in a public place when this happens. Again, I know this from experience too. Other issues can also stem from this problem as diarrhea is known for causing an excess amount of liquid (water) from the body to pass through the digestiv system, instead of absorbing into the body as it should. This can open the door potentially to having side-issues with dehydration at the same time as you're dealing with an explosive mess.

5) Cost of Meds: While it is true that most of the newer HIV meds on the market are effective at surpressing the HIV virus, if you live in an area that does not have any kind of medical funding assistance, you're suddenly faced with another problem… the cost of the medication itself. For example, the Prezista, Norvir, and Truvada (that keep me alive) alone run over $3000 for a 30-day supply. Unless you're rich like Bill Gates or if you have some kind of awesome drug care coverage, this can suddenly make your cost of living very expensive. To this day, there are still many people (even in North America) who have to go without these life saving meds, simply because they cannot afford to pay for them. This is the reality that you must face when you are diagnosed with HIV and must go on the meds.

Once you get past these issues (among a few others that I haven't listed), sure.... HIV isn't all that bad. There are a few other points that I would like to touch on as well....

@FlammeRouge:

Poor education / awareness is a more serious culprit. I've heard from a public health sex worker, whom I had a talk with very recently, is that gay teenagers think it's okay to have unprotected sex and actually getting infected with HIV isn't that serious. If you're already infected you don't have to use condoms, inside condoms, dental dams, gloves and the like, and that would be completely fine, and that there would be little to no reason for concern whatsoever, it's just that once you're not seropositive anymore you'll have to use medication. So these teens try to get infected with HIV purposefully. One of these methods is bareback sex, but oral sex and any other activity which causes exchange of bodily fluids also transmit HIV.

There are a few problems I have with this… The first is that I have learned the hard way that any Public Health organization will tend to help promote the stigma, and in some cases, actually gives outright wrong information with respect to prevention methods and risk factors for reasons that I have never quite understood. That being said though, the whole topic of condoms isn't as cut and dry as it may seem. Just being HIV+ alone doesn't actually mean all that much to the risk factor involved. If you're HIV+ and have an undetectable viral load, it is virtually impossible to infect someone, which means that the whole concept of bareback sex being a huge risk is flawed. While this is true with someone who is HIV+ with a high viral load engaging in unprotected sex is like playing with fire, this does not hold true with an undetecable viral load. This is one of the biggest things to take into accout when assessing risk factor.

Also, Truvada is also used as a PrEP drug, which can help substantially reduce the risk of contracting HIV. This kind of thing also plays a large factor when assessing your risk.... So.... In answering the original quetion, while it may be true that bareback porn has resulted in some HIV infections, it's just not realistic to go so far as branding it a "culprit" for HIV/AIDS.

@cwilbur:

Bareback sex is OK in the real world: when you're in a long-term monogamous relationship with a partner of the same sero-status, or a long-term closed relationship with two or more partners of the same zero-status.

Beyond that, the chances of a guy who's poz and successfully medicated transmitting HIV though unprotected sex are less than the chances of a guy who doesn't know his status transmitting HIV while using a condom – because guys who are actually poz but don't know their status have insanely high viral loads; combine that with the slightest bit of error in using a condom, and you've got a public health problem.

Even with one partner who is HIV+ and one who is not, bareback sex is not necessarily out of the question. As I mentioned, the viral load plays a large part in assessing the risk factor. You are also correct with respect to the risk factor being lower with someone who is medicated. This is both because generally speaking, people who are taking the HIV meds most often have an undetectable viral load. It also holds true in that while there may be exposure to HIV through uprotected sex, there's also a certain amount of exposure to the anti-bodies as well when they're on the medication, which also plays a part in reducing the risk. In short, calculating the risk factors can get quite complicated.

I kinda love tormenting people who don't know any better lol…. That's a perfect example hehe...

The chlorine alone in the pool will stop any possible outbreak of any such thing. Even without chlorine, they would have to actively have an open wound that woud leak a sufficient amount of blood in which to transfer directly into another open wound on the other person's body... Just the sheer physics of it are mind boggling  :hehe:

I know that this is kind of an old post now, but there is some issue with Google as of late….

See... Google first implemented the use of SPF record checking to verify that the email's origin is legitimate. Since then however, they have started to forcibly cram DKIM bullshit down the throats of mail server administrators. The sad thing is that even with a proper SPF record and a properly DKIM signed email message to verify its origin, Google seems to bounce emails at random with the error code 550-5.7.1, claiming that it's been bounced because it's "Most Likely SPAM". Of course, as a mail administrator myself, this is a bit of a piss off because there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to when or why they bounce messages, and of course, absolutely no way in which to contact them.

This could be a part of the problem.

The short answer to your question is yes…. Approximately evey 30 minutes, your torrent client updates with the tracker and tells it how much data has been transferred since the last update. For this reason, it may take some time for information that you have transferred to actually be reflected on the tracker.

That being said, also be aware that the total UL/DL stats that you see in your torrent client also include network overhead traffic. As such, you may notice a small difference between what your torrent client reads, and what the tracker reads. Lastly, there's also the issue of session history. When you stop a torrent in your torrent client, your torrent client will still show that you've got some data transferred. When you start the torrent again, the numbers will not match because your torrent client will have kept track of the session stats for that particular torrent as it sits in your torrent client, however the tracker will keep track of the stats for that particular session, which gets reset every time you stop the torrent.

Just a heads up...

There is also a request re-seed button. A lot of times, this is an effective way of reviving such a torrent.

This seems to be a classic case of the common proxy issue that a lot of users are experiencing.

In short, most proxy servers will not work to connect to the system's back-end because of technical changes to the way that it works. In a nut shell, there is a re-direct that occurrs, which most proxy servers are incapable of picking up, which causes the packet to be dropped. Your best bet honestly is to invest a monthly fee into a VPN (PPTP Preferred) in order to get around this. It will stop you from being directly exposed to copyright trolls, but at the same time, will still allow you to connect to the servers.

It would appear that the torrent client that you're using does have some issue with SSL connections. Your best bet is to check the setings in your torrent client, and force it to accept the tracker's SSL cert.

Also, depending on what OS you're running and whether or not you can install apps, it may be worth while to try qBitTorrent. It's available on most platforms, yet is quite simple to work with.

There is also another possible reason why this may happen sometimes. If you're using a proxy server instead of a VPN, some of them are a little picky. Simply put, the site is now behind a protection system of its own. Because of this, there is use of JavaScript redirects to be able to properly reach the site and tracker. The down side to this is that if you're running a proxy server that is configured like most, the JavaScript re-direct is lost as it passes through the Proxy on the user's end, which has been known to cause this very issue.

My suggestion here is that if this does not work directly, try it temporarily without the use of the proxy server. If that does work, then I would suggest getting a full VPN service (PPTP preferred), which will still hide your identity the same way that the proxy will, however it tunnels ALL of your internet traffic through the VPN. This allows for maximum protection against copyright trolls, while at the same time, allowing you to still access the site and tracker.

Just a thought…

@trukr:

PIA Port Forwarding Servers:
Netherlands
Switzerland
CA North York
CA Toronto
Romania
Sweden
France
Germany

Bahahahaha!!! That's HILARIOUS!! Are you aware that North York IS Toronto? :lolp:

You might be surprised as to what people believe at this day and age actually… The sad reality is that there are some peole who still believe that exchanging a simple hug or a kiss with someone who is HIV+ will infect them, even though this is not so.

By the same token, there are also people out there who believe that it's only something that affects gay men, which is also quite incorrect. HIV doesn't descriminate, so why should you? :lolp:

@spiderr:

In oral sex the risk is lower than anal/vaginal sex.
http://www.thebody.com/cgi-bin/bbs/showflat.php?Board=infected&Number=81409

Saludos

This is correct… What this post also does not mention is that saliva actually contains a naturali enzime that kills HIV believe it or not. This is a large part as to why oral sex presents next to NO risk for HIV transmission. In fact, there has not been so much as one single documented case where HIV transmission has occurred solely from oral sex. That alone should speak for itself.

There's also risk factors to take into account…. As I've said before, the biggest factor in the equation is the HIV+ person's viral load.... There's also other factors, such as the length and roughnes of the sex, and whether or not tearing of the bodily (anal or vaginal) tissues occurrs. That being said though, proper education is a good start and not having to fear it because you don't understand it.

I completely agree with the concept of a little education goes a long way.

There's also more to the equation at this day and age… One must take into account the HIV+ person's viral load at the time. The lower the viral load, the less likely infection is. By the same token, when they have reached an undetectable viral load, even unprotected sex poses next to no actual risk.

By the same token, there are many other factors to take into account... If the bottom isn't used to takeing such a large cock, and you're not careful, you can cause tearing of the anal tissues, which will elevate the risk of possibility for infection by the virtue of introducing blood into the equation. Even at this though, the risk is still minimal. In fact, an undetectable viral load bareback is actually a lower risk than a high viral load with a condom..... Just some food for thought.