In Greek mythology, the name Thersander refers to several distinct characters: Thersander, one of the Epigoni. Thersander, a son of Sisyphus, brother of Glaucus and Almus, his own sons were Haliartus and Coronus, eponyms of Haliartus and Coronea and Proetus, himself father of Maera, known to have died a maiden. Thersander, one of the Heracleidae, son of Agamedidas, his twin daughters Anaxandra and Lathria married the twin sons of Aristodemus and Eurysthenes. Thersander of Crete, father, by Arethusa, of a son Hyllus. Hyllus was killed by Aeneas in the Trojan War. Pausanias, Description of Greece with an English Translation by W. H. S. Jones, Litt. D. and H. A. Ormerod, M. A. in 4 Volumes. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Online version at the Perseus Digital Library Pausanias, Graeciae Descriptio. 3 vols. Leipzig, Teubner. 1903. Greek text available at the Perseus Digital Library. Pseudo-Apollodorus, The Library with an English Translation by Sir James George Frazer, F. B. A. F. R. S. in 2 Volumes, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Online version at the Perseus Digital Library. Greek text available from the same website. Quintus Smyrnaeus, The Fall of Troy translated by Way. A. S. Loeb Classical Library Volume 19. London: William Heinemann, 1913. Online version at theio.com Quintus Smyrnaeus, The Fall of Troy. Arthur S. Way. London: William Heinemann. P. Putnam's Sons. 1913. Greek text available at the Perseus Digital Library
The 2019 Campeonato Brasileiro Série D was a football competition held in Brazil, equivalent to the fourth division. The competition started on 4 May and ended on 18 August 2019. Sixty-eight teams competed in the tournament. Sixty-four teams qualified from their state leagues and cups, four relegated from the 2018 Campeonato Brasileiro Série C. Brusque, Ituano and Manaus qualified for the semi-finals and were promoted to the 2020 Campeonato Brasileiro Série C; the finals between Brusque and Manaus finished in a 4–4 draw on aggregate, but Brusque clinched their first title by winning 6–5 on penalties. The number of teams from each state was chosen based on the CBF State Ranking; the teams were: a Uniclinic Atlético Clube was renamed as Futebol Clube Atlético Cearense on 21 September 2018. B Gurupi, 2018 Campeonato Tocantinense runners-up, declined to participate in the Série D on 5 April 2019, they were replaced by Interporto on 12 April 2019. In the first stage, 68 teams were divided into seventeen groups of four, organized regionally.
32 teams qualified for the second stage. From the second stage on the competition was played as a knock-out tournament with each round contested over two legs. In the first stage, each group played on a home-and-away round-robin basis; the winners of each group and the best 15 runners-up qualified for the second stage. The teams were ranked according to points. If tied on points, the following criteria would be used to determine the ranking: 1. Wins. Goal difference. Goals scored. Head-to-head. Fewest red cards. Fewest yellow cards. Draw in the headquarters of the Brazilian Football Confederation. 1 Bahia de Feira were deducted three points for fielding the ineligible player Edimar. The Second stage was a two-legged knockout tie, with the draw regionalised; the 32 qualifiers were divided into two pots. Pot 1 contained the 16 best performing group winners. Pot 2 contained the 15 qualifying group runners-up. In pot 1 the teams were numbered 1 to 16 in numerical order of the group they qualified from. In pot 2 the teams were numbered 17 to 32 in numerical order of the group.
In the case that one of the qualifying runners-up was from the same group as the worst performing group winner, both teams would be in pot 2 and the group winners would be numbered lower in sequence than the group runners-up. The teams were ranked according to points. If tied on points, the following criteria would be used to determine the ranking: 1. Wins. Goal difference. Goals scored. Draw in the headquarters of the Brazilian Football Confederation. To keep the draw regionalised Team 1 played Team 18, Team 2 played Team 17 and this pattern was repeated throughout the draw; the higher numbered team played at home in the first leg. The matches were played from 15 to 23 June; the third stage was a two-legged knockout tie, with the draw regionalised. The ties were predetermined from the second stage, with the winners of second stage tie 1 playing the winners of second stage tie 2, etc; the teams were seeded according to their performance in the tournament with the higher-seeded team hosting the second leg.
The matches were played from 30 June to 8 July. The final stages were a two leg knockout competition with quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals rounds; the draw for the quarter-finals was seeded based on the table of results of all matches in the competition for the qualifying teams. First played eighth, second played seventh, etc; the top four seeded teams played the second leg at home. The four quarter-final winners were promoted to Série C for 2020; the draw for the semi-finals was seeded based on the table of results of all matches in the competition for the qualifying teams. First played fourth, second played third; the top two seeded teams played the second leg at home. In the finals, the team with the best record in the competition played the second leg at home; the matches were played from 13 to 21 July. The matches were played from 28 July to 4 August; the matches were played on 18 August. Source: CBF
Variable envelope return path is a technique used by some electronic mailing list software to enable automatic detection and removal of undeliverable e-mail addresses. It works by using a different return path for each recipient of a message. Any long-lived mailing list is going to contain addresses that can't be reached. Addresses that were once valid can become unusable because the person receiving the mail there has switched to a different provider. In another scenario, the address may still exist but be abandoned, with unread mail accumulating until there is not enough room left to accept any more; when a message is sent to a mailing list, the mailing list software re-sends it to all of the addresses on the list. The presence of invalid addresses in the list results in bounce messages being sent to the owner of the list. If the mailing list is small, the owner can read the bounce messages and manually remove the invalid addresses from the list. With a larger mailing list, this is a tedious, unpleasant job, so it is desirable to automate the process.
Most bounce messages have been designed to be read by human users, not automatically handled by software. They all convey the same basic idea but with so many variations that it would be nearly impossible to write a program to reliably interpret the meaning of every bounce message. RFC 1894 defines a standard format to fix this problem, but support for the standard is far from universal. However, there are several common formats. Microsoft Exchange can sometimes bounce a message without providing any indication of the address to which the original message was sent; when Exchange knows the intended recipient, but is not willing to accept email for them, it omits their address. If a message is sent to firstname.lastname@example.org and the server knows that this is Joe User, it will bounce the message saying that the message to Joe User could not be delivered, leaving out the email@example.com address altogether. VERP is the only viable way to handle such bounces correctly; the hard part of bounce handling is matching up a bounce message with the undeliverable address that caused the bounce.
If the mailing list software can see that a bounce resulted from an attempt to send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org it doesn't need to understand the rest of the information in the bounce. It can count how many messages were sent to email@example.com, how many bounces resulted, if the proportion of bounced messages is too high, the address is removed from the list. While bounce message formats in general vary wildly, there is one aspect of a bounce message, predictable: the address to which it will be sent. VERP takes full advantage of this. In a mailing list that uses VERP, a different sender address is used for each recipient; the mailing list manager knows that it sent a message from X to Y, so if a bounce message is received at address X, it can only be because address Y was undeliverable, because nothing was sent from X to any other address. Thus the important information has been extracted from the bounce message, without any need to understand its contents, which means the person in charge of the list does not need to deal with it manually.
The first serious advocate of this solution, the originator of the term VERP to describe it, was Daniel J. Bernstein, who first put the idea into practice in his qmail MTA and ezmlm mailing list manager. Assume there is a mailing list called firstname.lastname@example.org and that an individual, email@example.com has subscribed to it, but on, Bob has left example.org, so his address is no longer valid. Consider what happens when someone sends a message to the list. Without VERP, the mailing list manager might send a message with the following characteristics: envelope sender: firstname.lastname@example.org recipient: email@example.comThis would result in a bounce, generated by the MTA of either example.net or example.org, with the following characteristics: envelope sender: empty recipient: firstname.lastname@example.org contents: example.org was unable to deliver the following message to bob:... The mailing list manager can't be expected to understand the contents of this bounce, can't deduce anything from the recipient address because hundreds of other people besides Bob were sent messages from email@example.com.
With VERP, the original message would be different: envelope sender: firstname.lastname@example.org recipient: email@example.comThe bounce will be more useful: envelope sender: empty recipient: firstname.lastname@example.org contents: example.org was unable to deliver the following message to bob:... From this bounce message the mailing list manager can deduce that a message to email@example.com must have failed. This example shows the simplest possible method of matching a VERP to a list subscriber: the entire recipient address is included within the return path, with the at sign replaced by an equals sign because a return path with two at signs would be invalid. Other encoding schemes are possible. CiviCRM Courier Mail Server Discourse exim, using a specialized Router/Transport combination ezmlm GNU Mailman Inxmail Mercury Mail Transport System mlmmj Mahara Mailchimp MediaWiki though mw:Extension:BounceHandler Moodle postfix qmail Sendmail, with a ruleset STEdb StrongMail Sympa Thexyz Zimbra Target Box NotifyBC The use of VERP requires each message to be sent once for every recipient, instead of once to each receiving SMTP server.
This is because of a limitation of SMTP, which allows multiple recipient addresses to be specified in a single transa