High speed internet access options...any ideas or help?
Philip J. Koenig
> Hi,
>
> This September I will be moving to an apartment in Davis, CA. I have spoken
> with PacBell and they have informed me that DSL service is not available at
> my location. Also, there is NO cable internet access available anywhere in
> Davis. If anyone here lives in Davis or knows of alternatives or options, i
> would gladly appreciate any help. I have a hard time believing that the many
> college student who reside in my neighborhood just simply go without some
> sort of broadband internet. Any help in the right direction would be
> wonderful. Thank you.
>
> --Chris
NewEdge has ISPs all over that area. They specialize in the
"secondary" DSL markets. Enter your area code and prefix on
their homepage and it will tell you for sure:
http://www.newedgenetworks.com/
--
Philip J. Koenig The Electric Kahuna Organization [anti-spammed]
----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millennium--------------
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkunet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Civilians killed in WTC attack: 2,830 Afghan civilians killed by US: 3,767 *
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/south_asia/newsid_2141000/2141975.stm*
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *
Greg Weatherby
fiber optic / cable. It is newly available in my area (Redwood City).
They claim 3.0 to 4.0 Mbs down speed and 766Kbs upload speed and for
$49.99 a month. I have an installation date of Sat Aug 31. I'm
wondering if anyone else has tried this service and is it as good as
it is advertised. Also are their e-mail servers any good. I'm
switching from PacBell DSL because of their HORRIBLE e-mail problems.
Greg
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Gandalf Parker
news:b9jfmu4deiikgcerp...@4ax.com:
> Anyone have any experience with RCN's new 'MegaModem" service? It's
> fiber optic / cable. It is newly available in my area (Redwood City).
> They claim 3.0 to 4.0 Mbs down speed and 766Kbs upload speed and for
> $49.99 a month. I have an installation date of Sat Aug 31. I'm
> wondering if anyone else has tried this service and is it as good as
> it is advertised. Also are their e-mail servers any good. I'm
> switching from PacBell DSL because of their HORRIBLE e-mail problems.
I dont know RCN specifically so take this with a grain of salt, but...
PacBell is a pretty good phone company. Their DSL is just another phone
service which they do pretty well. The internet services they try to do
(email, news, web-hosting) sucks big time.
Cable companys do cable pretty good. So far Ive heard the same about cable
companys that is said about PB DSL. Connection good, services still in the
learning curve.
My suggestion: accept the fact that you are going to have to choose
services for what they do well. Dont bother trying to switch around all the
time because some of its good one thing isnt. I have PacBell DSL for my
connection, and I have Sonic.net for my email/web/dns. Im happy with both.
Just my opinion.
Gandalf Parker
Bob K
"Gandalf Parker" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:Xns92747F3558CF...@216.168.3.30...
And I have ATTBI Cable for connectivity and sonic.net for my ISP. Works
great.
Bob
____________
www.usernomics.com
User Interface Design, Human Factors, Ergonomics, Training & Documentation
To reply by email, delete the [REMOVE-THIS] from the address.
Philip J. Koenig
[127.0.0.1] (Gandalf Parker) writes...
Given what I know about RCN, I'd suspect their service would be
far superior to Pacbell Internet.
I was an RCN customer for a while, after they bought out my previous
ISP, and the service was pretty decent for a national ISP. However
we were treated as "business class" customers so I don't have direct
experience with their consumer products.
That being said, they have some good technical staff, run a decent
national network, and certainly are capable of quality service. I
also had a bad experience one time with their consumer-level support
people a couple years ago, when I mistakenly called them asking
about DSL service that they didn't handle. It would be good to hear
from actual RCN cable customers. There might be some ratings of
them at www.dslreports.com.
Greg Weatherby
been with PacBell since the DSL service dropped to $50 a month, so it
must be 4 years now. I didn't make this decision lightly to change
because, yes, I am generally happy with the pure DSL end of it. But I
can't begin to tell you how awful the e-mail has been lately, so the
decision has been made to move forward in a different direction, and,
yes, I considered a diferent ISP keeping PacBell's DSL service. But
then I saw this ad for RCN in the local throw away newspaper, and when
I saw the bit about "3 to 4 times faster than DSL", I was intrigued.
And, yea, I checked DSLReports, not too much info there, tho what is
there, is generally good.
So, insytallation next Sat. To be honest, can't wait. The prospect of
even faster d/l and u/l speeds is very enticing.
I was just hoping that someone on here had already signed up for their
so called "mega modem" service, and could report good bad or
indifferent.
The input has been great tho!
John Navas
In <b9jfmu4deiikgcerp...@4ax.com> on Sat, 24 Aug 2002
11:20:24 -0700, Greg Weatherby <gwe...@nospampacbell.ne_addthet> wrote:
>Anyone have any experience with RCN's new 'MegaModem" service? It's
>fiber optic / cable.
That's standard cable TV.
>It is newly available in my area (Redwood City).
>They claim 3.0 to 4.0 Mbs down speed and 766Kbs upload speed and for
>$49.99 a month. I have an installation date of Sat Aug 31. I'm
>wondering if anyone else has tried this service and is it as good as
>it is advertised. Also are their e-mail servers any good. I'm
>switching from PacBell DSL because of their HORRIBLE e-mail problems.
Why didn't you just switch to a decent DSL ISP (e.g., Sonic.net)?
p.s. Please see "Address Munging FAQ: Spam-Blocking Your Email Address"
at <http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html> for the recommended
way to "mung" your email address as a protection against spam.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
Gandalf Parker
news:PU7a9.13915$Ik.3...@typhoon.sonic.net:
>> Greg Weatherby <gwe...@nospampacbell.ne_addthet>
>
> p.s. Please see "Address Munging FAQ: Spam-Blocking Your Email Address"
> at <http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html> for the recommended
> way to "mung" your email address as a protection against spam.
Why was that bad munging? Looked good to me.
More by the rules than mine are.
Gandalf Parker
infog...@fcc.govsdmud.org
To spam me please remove gandalf and sdmud.org from the above address.
John Navas
In <Xns92756C29248A...@216.168.3.30> on Sun, 25 Aug 2002
17:38:14 -0000, Gandalf Parker <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:PU7a9.13915$Ik.3...@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
>>> Greg Weatherby <gwe...@nospampacbell.ne_addthet>
>>
>> p.s. Please see "Address Munging FAQ: Spam-Blocking Your Email Address"
>> at <http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html> for the recommended
>> way to "mung" your email address as a protection against spam.
>
>Why was that bad munging? Looked good to me.
From the FAQ:
How should I NOT mung my address?
...
IMPORTANT! Do not make up domain names! Most of them actually exist,
and your fakery could cause them a lot of woe. Certain domains are
already virtually useless because of folks using them in mungs and
forgeries. Plus, new domain names are being added all the time, and
you never know if someone might want to use your mung; your actions
today -do- have an effect on the future! It is almost as harmful to
add something directly after the @ sign, and doing so may not prevent
the delivery of messages anyway.
...
DO: your...@your-isp.INVALID
(Use -only- .INVALID to do this!)
Gandalf Parker
> IMPORTANT! Do not make up domain names! Most of them actually
> ...
> DO: your...@your-isp.INVALID
> (Use -only- .INVALID to do this!)
He gives 3 examples of a DO and 1 example of a DONT
> DO: your...@ZxamplZ.nZt (Replace Z with E)
> DO: your...@example.invalid
> (use ONLY .invalid to do this!)
> DO: see_m...@for.my.real.address
> DON'T: your...@foo.example.com
I still think the one he is using would be considered acceptable.
Gandalf Parker
$name = "gandalf"; $sym = "@"; $domain = "community.net";
$fulladdr = $name + $sym + $domain;
John Navas
In <Xns92759A6A486F...@216.168.3.30> on Sun, 25 Aug 2002
22:11:05 -0000, Gandalf Parker <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:PF8a9.13954$Ik.3...@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
>> IMPORTANT! Do not make up domain names! Most of them actually
>> ...
>> DO: your...@your-isp.INVALID
>> (Use -only- .INVALID to do this!)
>
>He gives 3 examples of a DO and 1 example of a DONT
>
>> DO: your...@ZxamplZ.nZt (Replace Z with E)
>> DO: your...@example.invalid
>> (use ONLY .invalid to do this!)
>> DO: see_m...@for.my.real.address
>> DON'T: your...@foo.example.com
>
>I still think the one he is using would be considered acceptable.
Both example 1 and example 3 violate the correct principles (probably
inadvertently):
* "use ONLY .invalid to do this!" (example 2)
* "Do not make up domain names!" (below)
I've suggested to the author that he fix the inconsistency, but the FAQ
is now three years old. I suspect it's on autopilot. <sigh>
The problem with "gwe...@nospampacbell.ne_addthet" is that the TLD is
"ne_addthet", which could be valid. When "invalid" is used, load on the
Internet infrastructure is minimized, because it's reserved for this
purpose.
Fred Viles
>...
> The problem with "gwe...@nospampacbell.ne_addthet" is that the
> TLD is "ne_addthet", which could be valid. When "invalid" is
> used, load on the Internet infrastructure is minimized, because
> it's reserved for this purpose.
AFAIK all that "reserved for this purpose" means is that there will
never be a TLD with that name added to the root servers, it doesn't
mean that resolvers won't query the root servers for it. While there
is no such promise for ne_addthet, it is pretty absurd to pretend
that it might happen in practice.
Greg Weatherby
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>The problem with "gwe...@nospampacbell.ne_addthet" is that the TLD is
>"ne_addthet", which could be valid. When "invalid" is used, load on the
>Internet infrastructure is minimized, because it's reserved for this
>purpose.
While I understand the logic to not using the above "munge (?)", I
made it so "out there", as far it actually being a valid address,
that it would not be a problem. Can you conceive of this actually ever
being used?
Greg Weatherby
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>it is advertised. Also are their e-mail servers any good. I'm
>>switching from PacBell DSL because of their HORRIBLE e-mail problems.
>
>Why didn't you just switch to a decent DSL ISP (e.g., Sonic.net)?
Mainly because of the possibility of greatly increased speed over DSL
for the same price, and much faster upload speed (112K vs 766k). Also
the bundled local phone service package (the Bronze package) will most
likely allow me to save a little dosh, and in this economy, that's a
good thing. The package is $85 a month for the mega modem service and
for unlimited Bay Area phone. Since I spend over $50 a month for PB
local service, it just seemed to good to pass up. Stayed away from
their cable TV tho, as I have DirecTV and am very happy with that!
Greg
e-mail munger
John Navas
In <Xns9275C80...@66.150.105.42> on 25 Aug 2002 21:39:44 -0500,
Fred Viles <fv+a...@nospam.epitools.com> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:2eda9.14072$Ik.3...@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
>>...
>> The problem with "gwe...@nospampacbell.ne_addthet" is that the
>> TLD is "ne_addthet", which could be valid. When "invalid" is
>> used, load on the Internet infrastructure is minimized, because
>> it's reserved for this purpose.
>
>AFAIK all that "reserved for this purpose" means is that there will
>never be a TLD with that name added to the root servers, it doesn't
>mean that resolvers won't query the root servers for it.
Of course it does.
>While there
>is no such promise for ne_addthet, it is pretty absurd to pretend
>that it might happen in practice.
Not absurd at all -- .invalid won't ever go anywhere, but anything else
(e.g., ne_addthet) will pound on the Internet infrastructure.
John Navas
In <hqdjmugfpo71o41p1...@4ax.com> on Sun, 25 Aug 2002
22:10:03 -0700, Greg Weatherby <gwe...@nospampacbell.ne_addthet> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:53:50 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>The problem with "gwe...@nospampacbell.ne_addthet" is that the TLD is
>>"ne_addthet", which could be valid. When "invalid" is used, load on the
>>Internet infrastructure is minimized, because it's reserved for this
>>purpose.
>
>While I understand the logic to not using the above "munge (?)", I
>made it so "out there", as far it actually being a valid address,
>that it would not be a problem. Can you conceive of this actually ever
>being used?
Whether it's ever used or not, resolvers will still attempt to resolve
it. Why put unnecessary load on the Internet infrastructure?
Gandalf Parker
> the impressive John Navas decreed in ba.general
>
> In <hqdjmugfpo71o41p1...@4ax.com> on Sun, 25 Aug 2002
> 22:10:03 -0700, Greg Weatherby <gwe...@nospampacbell.ne_addthet> wrote:
>>
>>While I understand the logic to not using the above "munge (?)", I
>>made it so "out there", as far it actually being a valid address,
>>that it would not be a problem. Can you conceive of this actually ever
>>being used?
>
> Whether it's ever used or not, resolvers will still attempt to resolve
> it. Why put unnecessary load on the Internet infrastructure?
You feel that the .invalid is automatically discarded by servers, and that
its the only one which is? I see no evidence of this. And even if it were
true such a default would make its use quickly worthless (as explained in
the munge FAQ)
Doing a strings on named shows no special recognition of .invalid (although
there is a reference to .opague which I might pursue further). Querying the
central servers on it gives no different response than doing a query on any
other munged name. No special (and extra-fast) response such as example.com
gives.
Maybe I can get someone with access to a central server to do a strings for
.invalid
Gandalf Parker
Military Rule #121: During an inspection memorize this response.
"SIR I dont know the answer but I know where to find it SIR."
Bob K
What do you think of this one? I don't think a server will process [ xxxxxx]
and it is more obvious for a new user.
ergobob@ [REMOVE-THIS] sonic.net
Note the instruction at the bottom of my signature.
Bob
____________
www.usernomics.com
User Interface Design, Human Factors, Ergonomics, Training & Documentation
To reply by email, delete the [REMOVE-THIS] from the address.
"Gandalf Parker" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:Xns927644C44D36...@216.168.3.30...
Gandalf Parker
news:crta9.14298$Ik.3...@typhoon.sonic.net:
> Hi Gandalf,
>
> What do you think of this one? I don't think a server will process [
> xxxxxx] and it is more obvious for a new user.
>
> ergobob@ [REMOVE-THIS] sonic.net
>
> Note the instruction at the bottom of my signature.
>
> Bob
> ____________
>
> www.usernomics.com
> User Interface Design, Human Factors, Ergonomics, Training &
> Documentation
>
> To reply by email, delete the [REMOVE-THIS] from the address.
It should work, but its alittle standard for my tastes. The basic "rules"
are that it should be understandable by humans, and creative.
Spammers now use seperate software to process their lists. They dont care
how many "if this then do this" rules they have to build into it. Anything
that seems to become fairly standard will be covered eventually by a line
in their program.
The problem with being creative is that the most interesting ones are
harder for humans to figure out. You have to balance the two based on your
impressions of who will write to you. Keep in mind that you cannot stop
yourself from being spammed, you can only make it as hard as possible for
as many as possible (but then thats true of any defense, law, or security)
Gandalf Parker
Knowing that Im gandalf, and knowing that Im community.net,
should be enough for those that know me.
dane
: What do you think of this one? I don't think a server will process [ xxxxxx]
: and it is more obvious for a new user.
: ergobob@ [REMOVE-THIS] sonic.net
: Note the instruction at the bottom of my signature.
I just wonder why all the bother? Making it complicated to respond to your
posts is counter-productive to the concept of the Usenet itself, and
compromises potential dialog.
Instead, why not use a real address, and use reasonable anti-spam tools?
I've been posting to the Usenet using the same real address for eight years,
and absent spam filtering, I'd get piles. Thankfully, more than 99.5% of it
is correctly filtered by our anti-spam tools. I receive about 130
legitimate messages in my inbox daily and 60 spam messages in my spambox per
day. I end up with one spam in my real inbox every few weeks, it's very
very rare.
Absent your Usenet posting, you'll still get spam if you don't filter, so
you really want to address the issue of filtering anyway.
--
Dane Jasper Sonic.net, Inc.
(707)522-1000
mailto:da...@sonic.net http://www.sonic.net/
Key fingerprint = A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9 CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53
Fred Viles
> [POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <Xns9275C80...@66.150.105.42> on 25 Aug 2002 21:39:44
> -0500, Fred Viles <fv+a...@nospam.epitools.com> wrote:
>
>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>news:2eda9.14072$Ik.3...@typhoon.sonic.net:
>>
>>>...
>>> The problem with "gwe...@nospampacbell.ne_addthet" is that the
>>> TLD is "ne_addthet", which could be valid. When "invalid" is
>>> used, load on the Internet infrastructure is minimized,
>>> because it's reserved for this purpose.
>>
>>AFAIK all that "reserved for this purpose" means is that there
>>will never be a TLD with that name added to the root servers, it
>>doesn't mean that resolvers won't query the root servers for it.
>
> Of course it does.
I actually tried it before speaking, did you? A simple test shows
that BIND doesn't work that way, at least as of 9.1.3. If you've
tested a resolver that does, please provide details.
- Fred
Philip J. Koenig
writes...
> Bob K <ergobob@ [remove-this] sonic.net> wrote:
> : What do you think of this one? I don't think a server will process [ xxxxxx]
> : and it is more obvious for a new user.
>
> : ergobob@ [REMOVE-THIS] sonic.net
>
> : Note the instruction at the bottom of my signature.
>
> I just wonder why all the bother? Making it complicated to respond to your
> posts is counter-productive to the concept of the Usenet itself, and
> compromises potential dialog.
>
> Instead, why not use a real address, and use reasonable anti-spam tools?
> I've been posting to the Usenet using the same real address for eight years,
> and absent spam filtering, I'd get piles. Thankfully, more than 99.5% of it
> is correctly filtered by our anti-spam tools. I receive about 130
> legitimate messages in my inbox daily and 60 spam messages in my spambox per
> day. I end up with one spam in my real inbox every few weeks, it's very
> very rare.
>
> Absent your Usenet posting, you'll still get spam if you don't filter, so
> you really want to address the issue of filtering anyway.
I've been using munging for years and the conclusion I've come
to is:
1) It works, and works very well to prevent harvesting. (assuming
you don't use an easily-unmunged string)
2) 99% of the people that have trouble unmunging the address are
not worth communicating with because either they're somewhat
dense, chronic whiners, or just on a crusade to make some
personal point about munging. <yawn>
3) It is ALWAYS far better to not let an address get into a spammer's
grimy mits in the first place, than to try to rely on imperfect
spam blacklists and filters which cause completely new problems.
Philip J. Koenig
gwe...@nospampacbell.ne_addthet (Greg Weatherby) writes...
> Thanks everyone for the feedback. As to jumping ship with ISPs, I've
> been with PacBell since the DSL service dropped to $50 a month, so it
> must be 4 years now. I didn't make this decision lightly to change
> because, yes, I am generally happy with the pure DSL end of it. But I
> can't begin to tell you how awful the e-mail has been lately, so the
> decision has been made to move forward in a different direction, and,
> yes, I considered a diferent ISP keeping PacBell's DSL service. But
> then I saw this ad for RCN in the local throw away newspaper, and when
> I saw the bit about "3 to 4 times faster than DSL", I was intrigued.
>
> And, yea, I checked DSLReports, not too much info there, tho what is
> there, is generally good.
>
> So, insytallation next Sat. To be honest, can't wait. The prospect of
> even faster d/l and u/l speeds is very enticing.
>
> I was just hoping that someone on here had already signed up for their
> so called "mega modem" service, and could report good bad or
> indifferent.
If history repeats itself (and I suspect it will), those of you who
are amongst the early adopters in your neighborhood will probably
get thrilling fast service, for a while. (estimate: 6-18 mos)
Sooner or later as the company adds customers and starts actually
getting to the point where they're making money, performance will
start to drop off, policies will begin to be put in place to either
throttle traffic or penalize those who are in the upper few percent
of bandwidth users.
So enjoy it while it lasts, and make sure to report back here with
your experiences. :-)
John Navas
In <Xns927644C44D36...@216.168.3.30> on Mon, 26 Aug 2002
13:46:09 -0000, Gandalf Parker <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:7bla9.14213$Ik.3...@typhoon.sonic.net:
>> Whether it's ever used or not, resolvers will still attempt to resolve
>> it. Why put unnecessary load on the Internet infrastructure?
>
>You feel that the .invalid is automatically discarded by servers,
It should be.
>and that
>its the only one which is?
Yes.
>... And even if it were
>true such a default would make its use quickly worthless (as explained in
>the munge FAQ)
I don't think that follows.
John Navas
In <MPG.17d4cdca7...@corp.supernews.com> on Tue, 27 Aug 2002
00:44:43 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <YJua9.14380$Ik.3...@typhoon.sonic.net>, da...@sonic.net (dane)
>writes...
>> I just wonder why all the bother? Making it complicated to respond to your
>> posts is counter-productive to the concept of the Usenet itself, and
>> compromises potential dialog.
>>
>> Instead, why not use a real address, and use reasonable anti-spam tools?
>> I've been posting to the Usenet using the same real address for eight years,
>> and absent spam filtering, I'd get piles. Thankfully, more than 99.5% of it
>> is correctly filtered by our anti-spam tools. I receive about 130
>> legitimate messages in my inbox daily and 60 spam messages in my spambox per
>> day. I end up with one spam in my real inbox every few weeks, it's very
>> very rare.
>>
>> Absent your Usenet posting, you'll still get spam if you don't filter, so
>> you really want to address the issue of filtering anyway.
>
>I've been using munging for years and the conclusion I've come
>to is:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>3) It is ALWAYS far better to not let an address get into a spammer's
> grimy mits in the first place, than to try to rely on imperfect
> spam blacklists and filters which cause completely new problems.
I tend to agree with Dane. I use real email addresses on Usenet with
the string "spam" in them (currently spamf...@navasgroup.com). The
amount of spam I get from Usenet address harvesters isn't terribly
significant, even without much filtering. When it does start to build
up a bit, I retire the address and switch to a new one. My guess is
that some harvesters ignore addresses with the string "spam" and that
other harvesters try to remove the string. (My mailserver logs show
such bounces; e.g., fil...@navasgroup.com)
Greg Weatherby
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>Sooner or later as the company adds customers and starts actually
>getting to the point where they're making money, performance will
>start to drop off, policies will begin to be put in place to either
>throttle traffic or penalize those who are in the upper few percent
>of bandwidth users.
>
>So enjoy it while it lasts, and make sure to report back here with
>your experiences. :-)
Will do, roll on Saturday! Interesting to note that in the new advert
for the service in the newest edition of the 'throw away', they now
say *twice* as fast as DSL.
Greg
your value added poster
Gandalf Parker
news:MPG.17d4cebe8...@corp.supernews.com:
> If history repeats itself (and I suspect it will), those of you who
> are amongst the early adopters in your neighborhood will probably
> get thrilling fast service, for a while. (estimate: 6-18 mos)
>
Its unfortunately becoming very true.
If you find a service on the net that you really really like...
DONT TELL ANYONE!
Im all for the people who run the services I like to make money but I worry
over the record of what happens when they start doing well.
Gandalf Parker
I think I like you. But dont go thinking that makes me homogeneous or
anything. Im strictly heterogeneous.
John Navas
In <Xns927755BEBC46...@216.168.3.30> on Tue, 27 Aug 2002
15:27:15 -0000, Gandalf Parker <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote in
>news:MPG.17d4cebe8...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> If history repeats itself (and I suspect it will), those of you who
>> are amongst the early adopters in your neighborhood will probably
>> get thrilling fast service, for a while. (estimate: 6-18 mos)
>
>Its unfortunately becoming very true.
>If you find a service on the net that you really really like...
>DONT TELL ANYONE!
>
>Im all for the people who run the services I like to make money but I worry
>over the record of what happens when they start doing well.
If they don't start doing well, then they may well not survive. Better
to pick one that's keeps service good as it grows; e.g., Sonic.net
Philip J. Koenig
@navasgroup.com (John Navas) writes...
> [POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <Xns927644C44D36...@216.168.3.30> on Mon, 26 Aug 2002
> 13:46:09 -0000, Gandalf Parker <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
> >John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> >news:7bla9.14213$Ik.3...@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
> >> Whether it's ever used or not, resolvers will still attempt to resolve
> >> it. Why put unnecessary load on the Internet infrastructure?
> >
> >You feel that the .invalid is automatically discarded by servers,
>
> It should be.
>
> >and that
> >its the only one which is?
>
> Yes.
Actually there are some others, see RFC-2606.
.example
.test
However it might be argued that .invalid is the only one guaranteed
to be "invalid", the other TLDs mentioned above are not supposed to
ever be "real" in the global DNS. I'm not sure if one should expect
the client-side or the DNS/server-side to reject such reserved TLDs,
the RFC doesn't specify this.
John Navas
In <MPG.17d58b0d3...@corp.supernews.com> on Tue, 27 Aug 2002
14:12:23 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <c4Ma9.14723$Ik.3...@typhoon.sonic.net>, spamfilter0
>@navasgroup.com (John Navas) writes...
>> [POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <Xns927644C44D36...@216.168.3.30> on Mon, 26 Aug 2002
>> 13:46:09 -0000, Gandalf Parker <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>
>> >John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> >news:7bla9.14213$Ik.3...@typhoon.sonic.net:
>>
>> >> Whether it's ever used or not, resolvers will still attempt to resolve
>> >> it. Why put unnecessary load on the Internet infrastructure?
>> >
>> >You feel that the .invalid is automatically discarded by servers,
>>
>> It should be.
>>
>> >and that
>> >its the only one which is?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Actually there are some others, see RFC-2606.
>
>.example
>.test
>
>However it might be argued that .invalid is the only one guaranteed
>to be "invalid", the other TLDs mentioned above are not supposed to
>ever be "real" in the global DNS. I'm not sure if one should expect
>the client-side or the DNS/server-side to reject such reserved TLDs,
>the RFC doesn't specify this.
The difference (that I was referring to) that
".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
names that are sure to be invalid ...
Gandalf Parker
news:MPG.17d58b0d3...@corp.supernews.com:
> Actually there are some others, see RFC-2606.
>
> .example
> .test
Ahh. Thank you for that.
I will read that RFC.
Gandalf Parker
Graham Freeman
> : ergobob@ [REMOVE-THIS] sonic.net
I agree. I've used real (unaltered) e-mail addresses in my USENET postings
since 1995, and I get on average 1 spam per day in my inbox.
--
Graham Freeman
http://www.calteg.org/