[RC5] Fw: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

Enoch enojon at ATTGLOBAL.NET
Mon Sep 3 21:10:32 EDT 2001


Why am I getting this?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mail Delivery System" <Mailer-Daemon at mail-out.namezero.com>
To: <enojon at ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 7:00 PM
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender


> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
> 
> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
> 
>   janebrink at usa.net
>     SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:<janebrink at usa.net>:
>     host mxpool01.netaddress.usa.net [204.68.23.103]:
>     550 <janebrink at usa.net>... User has cancelled account
> 
> ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
> 
> Return-path: <enojon at ATTGLOBAL.NET>
> Received: from copper.backend.namezero.com ([10.0.0.5] helo=copper)
> by mail-out.namezero.com with esmtp (Exim 3.30 #1)
> id 15e2hK-0000WK-00
> for janebrink at usa.net; Mon, 03 Sep 2001 16:00:06 -0700
> Received: from  (HELO ) (chipsworld.llamas.net/63.77.33.226)
>   by copper with SMTP; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 16:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
>   Apparently from: owner-rc5 at lists.distributed.net
>   On behalf of:
>   christian at malerbakken.com
>   webmaster at dempe.com
> Received: (from majordomo at localhost)
> by chipsworld.llamas.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f83LG5C32119
> for rc5-outbound; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:16:05 -0400
> Received: from CC207596-A (cc207596-a.dover1.de.home.com [65.1.160.140])
> by chipsworld.llamas.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f83LG3932113
> for <rc5 at lists.distributed.net>; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:16:04 -0400
> Received: from CC207596A ([65.1.160.140] unverified) by CC207596-A with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966);
> Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:13:39 -0400
> Message-ID: <004f01c134bd$4d8d3e50$6135fea9 at CC207596A>
> From: "Enoch" <enojon at ATTGLOBAL.NET>
> To: <rc5 at lists.distributed.net>
> References: <4.3.1.2.20010829010136.01707868 at pop.tm.net.my> <20010829202326.D22801 at llama.nslug.ns.ca>
> Subject: Re: [RC5] VIA C3
> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:13:37 -0400
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Sep 2001 21:13:39.0765 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D8D3E50:01C134BD]
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by chipsworld.llamas.net id f83LG4932115
> Sender: owner-rc5 at lists.distributed.net
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: rc5 at lists.distributed.net
> X-NZ-Hop-Count: 1
> 
> at 600mhz, the VIA Cx III performs at 50% of the Intel and AMD equivalent
> rated chips.  
> 
> It may not be due to ooo exec alone, but VIA C3 lacking equivalent number of
> parallel microcode units.  Nevertheless, on microbenching, the core picked the
> "SS Ath" for best performance albeit performing at far slower keys/sec rate.
> 
> Maybe L2 cache size of the C3?
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Peter Cordes" <peter at llama.nslug.ns.ca>
> To: <rc5 at lists.distributed.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 7:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [RC5] VIA C3
> 
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 01:02:53AM +0800, Jin-Wei Tioh wrote:
> > > Would the lack of out-of-order execution on the VIA C3 processor
> > > significantly impact its RC5-64 performance?
> > 
> >  Probably not.  Out of order execution gives you better performance
> > with code that isn't perfectly tuned, and gives you more flexibility
> > when tuning.  For something like RC5, it's probably still possible to
> > keep all the (applicable) execution units running almost all the time. 
> > 
> >  Intel's P5 core was a superscalar in-order execution design.  (U pipe
> > and V pipe...)  The RC5 core optimized for it kept both pipes full,
> > AFAIK.
> > 
> > > Would any other aspects of its design affect it?
> > 
> >  How many instructions per clock it can issue (how many pipes there
> > are) is important, as well as the latency and throughput of the important
> > instructions like rotate, and MMX operations.
> > 
> > -- 
> > #define X(x,y) x##y
> > Peter Cordes ;  e-mail: X(peter at llama.nslug. , ns.ca)
> > 
> > "The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
> >  Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
> >  my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BCE
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
> > rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
> > 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
> rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list