It's sending that's the problem then? You could try using port 2525 for outgoing mail - we run SMTP on additional ports because so many ISPs filter outbound traffic on 25/TCP. Is receiving ok?

Cheers, and Noomill's posts helped a lot too. Spent a lot of time reading through those

The last few days have been pretty stressful. I was holding out as long as I could on the court bundle, hoping BC would settle and save me the work. But my bundle needed to be in by the 13th, so I couldn't wait much longer. It was my first time doing a bundle, so a bit of a learning curve, and I had the usual deal of running out of ink, printer paper etc; but by lunchtime I had the bundles ready and sent off. An hour later the settlement letter from BC arrived (great timing). Apparently their charges are fair, but they've decided to offer settlement in full anyway (as you do): 2,665.14. What makes this case interesting, I think, is that I was claiming restitutionary damages, using their cash advance interest rate of 27.9% as an initial figure for estimating the RD. If the case had gone to court, I doubted very much that the judge would have awarded RD at 27.9% (BF suggested around 15% might have been more realistic) - it was just a starting point. The charges themselves only amounted to 435 pounds - the rest was interest. If it had been just 8% SI, I'd have been much more confident of them settling out of court; but for them not to even defend 2k of interest .... I wonder (well, others have wondered on my behalf, and I'm now passing these wonderings off as my own) if it really was a case that it wasn't worth the cost for them to defend, or if they were worried that a judge might force them to reveal details of how much money they'd made off my charges (in order to assess the level of RD to award). Anyway, big thanks to slick and BF. Without them, I wouldn't have got this far. Wasted costs next? .....

Which version are you trying to install, Mr Worried? For Firefox or Internet Explorer? Can you describe what is going wrong?

Interesting letter from BC this morning (we're at the AQ stage now), offering a settlement figure of .... *drumroll* ... £8.90. Falls a little bit short of the 2.5K I was claiming. It's not actually as pathetic as it sounds - they'd already given me £220 back (even though I said I didn't want it). Still, I won't be accepting it

What a useful chap you are .... Basically BT's spam filtering policy. Some ISPs bounce suspected spam with a reason, and invite the sender to open a feedback loop - so that they can work with the ISP to solve the problem. Not BT though, they just silently discard anything they don't like. They don't appear to have any means to contact them about these sort of issues, so the whole thing is shrouded in mystery. I assume they're just in the habit of blacklisting whole net blocks, for reasons unknown. We have problems with this, and I know plenty of businesses around the country who simply can't contact BT users, and have lost business as a result. So basically we're just after someone at BT we can speak to

We're having a few problems sending mail to BT customers, and could really do with speaking to someone vaguely intelligent in the relevant department, rather than the overseas call centre staff who don't seem to be able to grasp that we aren't actually BT customers ourselves.

Over 24 hours it took to re-index all the posts, and during that time the server was pretty overloaded. So apologies for the site being slow on Weds/Thurs. The good news is that this has solved the problem of search pre-upgrade posts

There are a few things it could be: if the jpeg image is very large (in terms of dimensions) with the signature just in a very small area, that could be the reason. There are lots of other things it could be too though. If you want to contact [email protected] we'll take a look

Nice work:) That's solved that one

Can you just confirm which page, and which browser this is on please?

I can see the popupbody style in our css - line 1306 of pete_common_headinclude_v1.css . I see what you mean about the difference with vbulletin.com, I'd been working more on the idea that we had a missing 'display:none' to hide the menus by default

Sorry everyone. I was trying to fix the Chrome issue, and it caused the page navigation links to disappear - they're back now

Are we happy now Bookie?

Yeah you're right there (except the beard bit). Still, it *is* fixable, and it *will* be fixed

Posting this on behalf of DeejayP .... -------------- For over 20 years I’ve had a Lloyds Bank Current Account which, for various reasons, I no longer use - although the account is still live. I also still have a valid debit card for the account which I’d forgotten was still on file with Ebay. A few weeks back I used Ebay for the first time in ages and Ebay naturally attempted to charge their fees to my Lloyd’s debit card. Unfortunately, there is no money in the Lloyd's account (which I cleared out some time ago). Now I admit that this was an oversight on my part but, as I understood it, the whole point of a debit card was that if you didn’t have the funds then the transaction couldn’t go through. (And that's always been the way that the account has worked in the past). However, it appears that Lloyds have processed this payment as an “ Unauthorised Overdraft” and now want to charge some hefty fees. To add insult to injury, this occurred while I was on holiday and the charges have been ticking up daily. I’m now looking at charges of £75 on an "Unplanned Overdraft" of £9.09. Thing is, in 20 odd years, I’ve never had any form of overdraft facility on this account. Now they seem to have created one out of thin air, without my consent, and expect me to pay for the privilege. Where do I stand? Can they really charge me for a service which I never requested and don't want? (Incidentally, I intend to pay the £75 to stop the charges stacking up, with a view to recovering the money later). Any help appreciated. Many Thanks!

I think he's found the button - it's when he clicks it, it brings up a partially blank page (that bit between the forum name and the stickies looks a bit messed up in Chrome)

Hmm I'm not seeing that. Which browser are you on? Are we talking about the spellchecker which some browsers now have built in? I don't see a spellcheck in the advanced mode editor

Which browser are you using? I know someone using AOL 9 is having problems starting a new thread - I'm wondering if it's a browser-specific problem "Reply to thread" should open a reply box at the bottom of the thread, and scroll down to it. Could it me that the box is appearing, but you're not being scrolled down to it?

Just checking, I thought it'd be that. We could potentially go round in circles all day with this one. The reason I increased the font sizes was that a lot of people were complaining of the fonts being too small. Of the two (too small or too big), I think too big is the lesser evil. I think we'll probably end up creating some alternative themes off the current one - eg one with large fonts, one with smaller, one with higher contrast etc

That does look a mess doesn't it. Any better now?

I've fixed that centre alignment - some had forgotten a closing tag. Also those 'object expired' javascript errors are gone now

Any particular text?

I didn't even realise we had that. You mean in the list of threads, hovering over it should bring up a preview? I'm not seeing that in Firefox either

Which shows all forums? At the moment the 'Consumer Forums' tab shows all forums*; 'Debt Forums' just shows the debt forums, 'Bank Forums' just the banking ones. *Actually that's not strictly true. The media forums aren't show in that list. We were trying to move away from the monolithic approach - having all the forums on one page makes for a lot of scrolling, and a lot of html for people on low-end machines. Given the confusion it was causing, we've come up with this compromise