Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Tsohost, catchall, forwarding
448 views
Skip to first unread message
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jan 29, 2017, 2:20:11 PM1/29/17
to
I signed up with Tsohost (for registration and hosting) last night.
(What I thought would take maybe half an hour took four+.)
I wanted to keep the <anything>@ option, that I have with
@mysub.demon.co.uk, and also @myuser.plus.com .
After some researching, I'd _sort of_ got confirmation from someone at
Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
It certainly accepts <anything>@mydomain, and I can setup a catchall
forwarder. But it seems I _can't_ set it up to forward as I wanted - i.
e. keeping the bit before the @ unchanged, without knowing what it is.
(If any Tsohost user knows how to do this, please share!)
I've set up a forwarder, something like
*@mydomain forwards to *@me.plus.com
, because their forwarding catchall setup help page said use wildcards;
however, what seems to be happening is that the emails are being
forwarded to *@me.plus.com, i. e. to an email address that actually has
a star in it.
It _probably_ doesn't matter, because I do get the emails, and when I
view them in Turnpike, they actually show up with "To: xyz@mydomain";
it's only by looking at the headers that I "know" (suspect) that they're
being forwarded to the address with a * in it. (I've not played with
TP's routing again yet.)
If anyone's interested, here's the header of one I sent myself, from
m...@soft255.dcu (but I use PlusNet's outgoing email server) to
x...@255soft.uk (my new domain), as I collected it from PlusNet's
incoming email server by POP3 - note the *s in Envelope-to and one of
the "for"s:
Received: from mail.plus.net by soft255.demon.co.uk with POP3
id <UID332-1429949...@mail.plus.net>
for <jpgil...@mail.plus.net> ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:36:26 +0000
Return-path: <g6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
Envelope-to: *@jpgilliver.plus.com
Delivery-date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:36:16 +0000
Received: from [212.159.8.109] (helo=avasin17.plus.net)
by inmx11.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id
1cXF7v-0002mI-Vu
for *@jpgilliver.plus.com; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:36:15 +0000
Received: from mail3-a.eqx.gridhost.co.uk ([95.142.156.10])
by avasin17.plus.net with Plusnet Cloudmark Gateway
id dacD1u0050DkDPj01acFQE; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:36:15 +0000
X-CM-Score: 0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=fKJJ5dSe c=1 sm=1 tr=0
a=d3c2FgADurOi/LBDdf0Obg==:117 a=Hm20ZjQSgbRR9MC3VoETGQ==:17
a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=IgFoBzBjUZAA:10 a=pGH3Zt52tetqVK_K-YwA:9
a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=Gjy7tqkF4cMA:10
Received: from [84.93.230.227] (helo=avasout01.plus.net)
by mail3.eqx.gridhost.co.uk with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <g6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>)
id 1cXF7t-0004uU-PW
for x...@255soft.uk; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:36:13 +0000
Received: from soft255.demon.co.uk ([87.113.58.199])
by avasout01 with smtp
id dacB1u0034HuX8701acDKQ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:36:13 +0000
X-CM-Score: 0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=IItyMknG c=1 sm=1 tr=0
a=Hm20ZjQSgbRR9MC3VoETGQ==:117 a=Hm20ZjQSgbRR9MC3VoETGQ==:17
a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=pGH3Zt52tetqVK_K-YwA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10
a=Gjy7tqkF4cMA:10
X-AUTH: jpgilliver@:2500
Message-ID: <YVeGnICP...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:35:59 +0000
To: x...@255soft.uk
From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<32oDLolf8kSC4DEg4ZaACwtNO4>)
X-PN-Virus-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v5.00)
X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v5.00)
Subject: test
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.
(What I thought would take maybe half an hour took four+.)
I wanted to keep the <anything>@ option, that I have with
@mysub.demon.co.uk, and also @myuser.plus.com .
After some researching, I'd _sort of_ got confirmation from someone at
Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
It certainly accepts <anything>@mydomain, and I can setup a catchall
forwarder. But it seems I _can't_ set it up to forward as I wanted - i.
e. keeping the bit before the @ unchanged, without knowing what it is.
(If any Tsohost user knows how to do this, please share!)
I've set up a forwarder, something like
*@mydomain forwards to *@me.plus.com
, because their forwarding catchall setup help page said use wildcards;
however, what seems to be happening is that the emails are being
forwarded to *@me.plus.com, i. e. to an email address that actually has
a star in it.
It _probably_ doesn't matter, because I do get the emails, and when I
view them in Turnpike, they actually show up with "To: xyz@mydomain";
it's only by looking at the headers that I "know" (suspect) that they're
being forwarded to the address with a * in it. (I've not played with
TP's routing again yet.)
If anyone's interested, here's the header of one I sent myself, from
m...@soft255.dcu (but I use PlusNet's outgoing email server) to
x...@255soft.uk (my new domain), as I collected it from PlusNet's
incoming email server by POP3 - note the *s in Envelope-to and one of
the "for"s:
Received: from mail.plus.net by soft255.demon.co.uk with POP3
id <UID332-1429949...@mail.plus.net>
for <jpgil...@mail.plus.net> ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:36:26 +0000
Return-path: <g6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
Envelope-to: *@jpgilliver.plus.com
Delivery-date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:36:16 +0000
Received: from [212.159.8.109] (helo=avasin17.plus.net)
by inmx11.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id
1cXF7v-0002mI-Vu
for *@jpgilliver.plus.com; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:36:15 +0000
Received: from mail3-a.eqx.gridhost.co.uk ([95.142.156.10])
by avasin17.plus.net with Plusnet Cloudmark Gateway
id dacD1u0050DkDPj01acFQE; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:36:15 +0000
X-CM-Score: 0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=fKJJ5dSe c=1 sm=1 tr=0
a=d3c2FgADurOi/LBDdf0Obg==:117 a=Hm20ZjQSgbRR9MC3VoETGQ==:17
a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=IgFoBzBjUZAA:10 a=pGH3Zt52tetqVK_K-YwA:9
a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=Gjy7tqkF4cMA:10
Received: from [84.93.230.227] (helo=avasout01.plus.net)
by mail3.eqx.gridhost.co.uk with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <g6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>)
id 1cXF7t-0004uU-PW
for x...@255soft.uk; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:36:13 +0000
Received: from soft255.demon.co.uk ([87.113.58.199])
by avasout01 with smtp
id dacB1u0034HuX8701acDKQ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:36:13 +0000
X-CM-Score: 0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=IItyMknG c=1 sm=1 tr=0
a=Hm20ZjQSgbRR9MC3VoETGQ==:117 a=Hm20ZjQSgbRR9MC3VoETGQ==:17
a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=pGH3Zt52tetqVK_K-YwA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10
a=Gjy7tqkF4cMA:10
X-AUTH: jpgilliver@:2500
Message-ID: <YVeGnICP...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:35:59 +0000
To: x...@255soft.uk
From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<32oDLolf8kSC4DEg4ZaACwtNO4>)
X-PN-Virus-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v5.00)
X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v5.00)
Subject: test
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.
Molly Mockford
Jan 29, 2017, 2:36:20 PM1/29/17
to
At 15:40:48 on Sat, 28 Jan 2017, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<xUMcHgYA...@soft255.demon.co.uk>:
>I signed up with Tsohost (for registration and hosting) last night.
>
>(What I thought would take maybe half an hour took four+.)
>
>I wanted to keep the <anything>@ option, that I have with
>@mysub.demon.co.uk, and also @myuser.plus.com .
>
>After some researching, I'd _sort of_ got confirmation from someone at
>Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
>would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
>
>It certainly accepts <anything>@mydomain, and I can setup a catchall
>forwarder. But it seems I _can't_ set it up to forward as I wanted - i.
>e. keeping the bit before the @ unchanged, without knowing what it is.
>(If any Tsohost user knows how to do this, please share!)
Are you signed up to Cloud or cPanel? I've recently signed up to
cPanel, and in order to set up the catchall forwarding you need to go to
Email / Default Address and set up the catchall address on a per-domain
basis (if you have only one domain, this will be very straightforward).
Find "Send all unrouted email for the following domain:" and make sure
your domain is in the box below. Then select "Forwards to Email
Address" and enter the address (on your domain, or another such as an
ISP-given address or Gmail or whatever) to which you want all that mail
to go. If you have chosen an address on your domain to take catchall
mail, you also need to set up that mailbox under Email - Email Accounts.
But don't use the asterisk for a wildcard when setting up a mailbox - it
doesn't seem to produce the required result, as you've found.
What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
HTH!
--
Molly Mockford
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph.D.)
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<xUMcHgYA...@soft255.demon.co.uk>:
>I signed up with Tsohost (for registration and hosting) last night.
>
>(What I thought would take maybe half an hour took four+.)
>
>I wanted to keep the <anything>@ option, that I have with
>@mysub.demon.co.uk, and also @myuser.plus.com .
>
>After some researching, I'd _sort of_ got confirmation from someone at
>Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
>would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
>
>It certainly accepts <anything>@mydomain, and I can setup a catchall
>forwarder. But it seems I _can't_ set it up to forward as I wanted - i.
>e. keeping the bit before the @ unchanged, without knowing what it is.
>(If any Tsohost user knows how to do this, please share!)
cPanel, and in order to set up the catchall forwarding you need to go to
Email / Default Address and set up the catchall address on a per-domain
basis (if you have only one domain, this will be very straightforward).
Find "Send all unrouted email for the following domain:" and make sure
your domain is in the box below. Then select "Forwards to Email
Address" and enter the address (on your domain, or another such as an
ISP-given address or Gmail or whatever) to which you want all that mail
to go. If you have chosen an address on your domain to take catchall
mail, you also need to set up that mailbox under Email - Email Accounts.
But don't use the asterisk for a wildcard when setting up a mailbox - it
doesn't seem to produce the required result, as you've found.
What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
HTH!
--
Molly Mockford
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph.D.)
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
Malcolm Loades
Jan 29, 2017, 3:01:34 PM1/29/17
to
On 29/01/2017 19:33, Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 15:40:48 on Sat, 28 Jan 2017, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> <xUMcHgYA...@soft255.demon.co.uk>:
>> After some researching, I'd _sort of_ got confirmation from someone at
>> Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
>> would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
>>
>> It certainly accepts <anything>@mydomain, and I can setup a catchall
>> forwarder. But it seems I _can't_ set it up to forward as I wanted - i.
>> e. keeping the bit before the @ unchanged, without knowing what it is.
>> (If any Tsohost user knows how to do this, please share!)
>
>> Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
>> would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
>>
>> It certainly accepts <anything>@mydomain, and I can setup a catchall
>> forwarder. But it seems I _can't_ set it up to forward as I wanted - i.
>> e. keeping the bit before the @ unchanged, without knowing what it is.
>> (If any Tsohost user knows how to do this, please share!)
>
> What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>
On the Cloud make a forwarding rule *@mydomain to forward to
>
what...@me.plus.com Mail received by this route always shows To: as
being the original whatever@mydomain In the header will be the line
Envelope-to: what...@me.plus.com
Malcolm
Andy
Jan 29, 2017, 3:02:00 PM1/29/17
to
In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
[]
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society].
Visit www dot austrianphilately dot com>
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
[]
>
>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>
Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society].
Visit www dot austrianphilately dot com>
Molly Mockford
Jan 29, 2017, 4:46:24 PM1/29/17
to
At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote in
<SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>[]
>>
>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>
>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
<SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>[]
>>
>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>
>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
John Hall
Jan 29, 2017, 5:02:06 PM1/29/17
to
In message <nYSXN4rn...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
--
John Hall
"One can certainly imagine the myriad of uses
for a hand-held iguana maker"
Hobbes (the tiger, not the philosopher!)
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
>At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote in
><SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>
>>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>[]
>>>
>>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>
>>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>
>Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
If it was proper Cheddar, on the other hand...
><SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>
>>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>[]
>>>
>>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>
>>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>
>Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
--
John Hall
"One can certainly imagine the myriad of uses
for a hand-held iguana maker"
Hobbes (the tiger, not the philosopher!)
Graeme Wall
Jan 29, 2017, 5:05:04 PM1/29/17
to
On 29/01/2017 22:01, John Hall wrote:
> In message <nYSXN4rn...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
> <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
>> At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote in
>> <SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>>
>>> In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>> <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>> []
>>>>
>>>> What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>>
>>> Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>>
>> Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
>
> If it was proper Cheddar, on the other hand...
Or a nice bit of Caerphilly.
> In message <nYSXN4rn...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
> <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
>> At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote in
>> <SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>>
>>> In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>> <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>> []
>>>>
>>>> What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>>
>>> Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>>
>> Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
>
> If it was proper Cheddar, on the other hand...
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Andy
Jan 30, 2017, 4:57:28 AM1/30/17
to
In message <fY2gWLHSZmjYFwBA@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>In message <nYSXN4rn...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
>>At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote in
>><SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>>
>>>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>>[]
>>>>
>>>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>>
>>>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>>
>>Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
>
>If it was proper Cheddar, on the other hand...
Only for mice. Nowt beats Hawes Wensleydale. (Beware of look-alikes...)
><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
>>At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote in
>><SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>>
>>>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>>[]
>>>>
>>>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>>
>>>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>>
>>Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
>
>If it was proper Cheddar, on the other hand...
John Hall
Jan 30, 2017, 11:53:59 AM1/30/17
to
In message <GyDT3MB6...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>, Andy
<an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes
<an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes
>In message <fY2gWLHSZmjYFwBA@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>>In message <nYSXN4rn...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
>>>At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote in
>>><SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>>>
>>>>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>>>[]
>>>>>
>>>>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>>>
>>>>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>>>
>>>Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
>>
>>If it was proper Cheddar, on the other hand...
>
>Only for mice. Nowt beats Hawes Wensleydale. (Beware of look-alikes...)
Are you sure that's a cheese and not a person?
><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>>In message <nYSXN4rn...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
>>>At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote in
>>><SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>>>
>>>>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>>>[]
>>>>>
>>>>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>>>
>>>>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>>>
>>>Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
>>
>>If it was proper Cheddar, on the other hand...
>
>Only for mice. Nowt beats Hawes Wensleydale. (Beware of look-alikes...)
Molly Mockford
Jan 30, 2017, 12:22:59 PM1/30/17
to
At 16:46:45 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk>
wrote in <nMT8OxC132jYFwG2@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>:
>In message <GyDT3MB6...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>, Andy
><an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes
>>In message <fY2gWLHSZmjYFwBA@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>>>In message <nYSXN4rn...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
>>>>At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote
>>>>in <SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>>>>[]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>>>>
>>>>Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
>>>
>>>If it was proper Cheddar, on the other hand...
>>
>>Only for mice. Nowt beats Hawes Wensleydale. (Beware of look-alikes...)
>
>Are you sure that's a cheese and not a person?
I think you're thinking of the Stinking Bishop.
wrote in <nMT8OxC132jYFwG2@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>:
>In message <GyDT3MB6...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>, Andy
><an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes
>>In message <fY2gWLHSZmjYFwBA@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>>>In message <nYSXN4rn...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
>>>>At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote
>>>>in <SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>>>>[]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>>>>
>>>>Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
>>>
>>>If it was proper Cheddar, on the other hand...
>>
>>Only for mice. Nowt beats Hawes Wensleydale. (Beware of look-alikes...)
>
>Are you sure that's a cheese and not a person?
Andy
Jan 30, 2017, 2:27:32 PM1/30/17
to
In message <nMT8OxC132jYFwG2@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>In message <GyDT3MB6...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>, Andy
><an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes
>>In message <fY2gWLHSZmjYFwBA@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>>>In message <nYSXN4rn...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
>>>>At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote
>>>>in <SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>>>>[]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>>>>
>>>>Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
>>>
>>>If it was proper Cheddar, on the other hand...
>>
>>Only for mice. Nowt beats Hawes Wensleydale. (Beware of look-alikes...)
>
>Are you sure that's a cheese and not a person?
The half kilo in my fridge is definitely cheese, Gromit.
>In message <GyDT3MB6...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>, Andy
><an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes
>>In message <fY2gWLHSZmjYFwBA@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>>>In message <nYSXN4rn...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
>>>>At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote
>>>>in <SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>>>>[]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>>>>
>>>>Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
>>>
>>>If it was proper Cheddar, on the other hand...
>>
>>Only for mice. Nowt beats Hawes Wensleydale. (Beware of look-alikes...)
>
>Are you sure that's a cheese and not a person?
Charles Ellson
Jan 30, 2017, 8:09:26 PM1/30/17
to
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:21:00 +0000, Molly Mockford
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>At 16:46:45 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk>
>wrote in <nMT8OxC132jYFwG2@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>:
>
>>In message <GyDT3MB6...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>, Andy
>><an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes
>>>In message <fY2gWLHSZmjYFwBA@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>>><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>>>>In message <nYSXN4rn...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
>>>>>At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote
>>>>>in <SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>>>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>>>>>[]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
>>>>
>>>>If it was proper Cheddar, on the other hand...
>>>
>>>Only for mice. Nowt beats Hawes Wensleydale. (Beware of look-alikes...)
>>
>>Are you sure that's a cheese and not a person?
>
>I think you're thinking of the Stinking Bishop.
>
I thought that was a hygiene problem.
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>At 16:46:45 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk>
>wrote in <nMT8OxC132jYFwG2@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>:
>
>>In message <GyDT3MB6...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>, Andy
>><an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes
>>>In message <fY2gWLHSZmjYFwBA@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>>><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>>>>In message <nYSXN4rn...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes
>>>>>At 20:01:50 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> wrote
>>>>>in <SkG2iVLu...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <56+wFvqV...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>>>>>><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote
>>>>>>[]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What to do if you're on the Cloud, I haven't the faintest idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hurl thunderbolts at your enemies...
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, that sounds more fun than eating Philadelphia cream cheese...
>>>>
>>>>If it was proper Cheddar, on the other hand...
>>>
>>>Only for mice. Nowt beats Hawes Wensleydale. (Beware of look-alikes...)
>>
>>Are you sure that's a cheese and not a person?
>
>I think you're thinking of the Stinking Bishop.
>
John McCabe
Mar 6, 2017, 8:09:46 AM3/6/17
to
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 19:20:11 UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> I signed up with Tsohost (for registration and hosting) last night.
>
> (What I thought would take maybe half an hour took four+.)
>
> I wanted to keep the <anything>@ option, that I have with
> @mysub.demon.co.uk, and also @myuser.plus.com .
>
> After some researching, I'd _sort of_ got confirmation from someone at
> Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
> would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
Quick question - what do you plan to do if you move away from PlusNet?
> I signed up with Tsohost (for registration and hosting) last night.
>
> (What I thought would take maybe half an hour took four+.)
>
> I wanted to keep the <anything>@ option, that I have with
> @mysub.demon.co.uk, and also @myuser.plus.com .
>
> After some researching, I'd _sort of_ got confirmation from someone at
> Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
> would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
The reason for asking is that I get the impression (I may be wrong of course) that the way you've implemented this is such that, if you move to another ISP, you just change your forwarding to point to whatever email address(es) you get from your ISP.
Also, do you plan to send email as xxx@<yourdomain> through PlusNet's SMTP relay?
As a matter of interest, do you have a link to the details of the hosting package you've set up?
Molly Mockford
Mar 6, 2017, 8:26:15 AM3/6/17
to
At 05:09:45 on Mon, 6 Mar 2017, John McCabe <jo...@mccabe.org.uk> wrote
in <fc8339ab-dc7b-40d6...@googlegroups.com>:
>On Sunday, 29 January 2017 19:20:11 UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> I signed up with Tsohost (for registration and hosting) last night.
>>
>> (What I thought would take maybe half an hour took four+.)
>>
>> I wanted to keep the <anything>@ option, that I have with
>> @mysub.demon.co.uk, and also @myuser.plus.com .
>>
>> After some researching, I'd _sort of_ got confirmation from someone at
>> Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
>> would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
Yes, it is simplicity itself to set up what they call default
forwarding, to achieve precisely that - at least, in the cPanel setup
which I have. I have no experience of their Cloud hosting, but others
have said that the catchall forwarding works fine there too.
>Quick question - what do you plan to do if you move away from PlusNet?
>
>The reason for asking is that I get the impression (I may be wrong of
>course) that the way you've implemented this is such that, if you move
>to another ISP, you just change your forwarding to point to whatever
>email address(es) you get from your ISP.
Changing the forwarding in TsoHost (e.g. from *@me.plus.com to a TsoHost
POP3 mailbox, or to a different external address) would take effect
instantly.
>Also, do you plan to send email as xxx@<yourdomain> through PlusNet's
>SMTP relay?
An alternative is to relay via TsoHost, although it is probably easier
to use PlusNet, because it doesn't involve the same limit on the length
of the authentication e-mail (quite a few of us using Gradwell/Turnpike
ran into this problem some years ago).
in <fc8339ab-dc7b-40d6...@googlegroups.com>:
>On Sunday, 29 January 2017 19:20:11 UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> I signed up with Tsohost (for registration and hosting) last night.
>>
>> (What I thought would take maybe half an hour took four+.)
>>
>> I wanted to keep the <anything>@ option, that I have with
>> @mysub.demon.co.uk, and also @myuser.plus.com .
>>
>> After some researching, I'd _sort of_ got confirmation from someone at
>> Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
>> would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
forwarding, to achieve precisely that - at least, in the cPanel setup
which I have. I have no experience of their Cloud hosting, but others
have said that the catchall forwarding works fine there too.
>Quick question - what do you plan to do if you move away from PlusNet?
>
>The reason for asking is that I get the impression (I may be wrong of
>course) that the way you've implemented this is such that, if you move
>to another ISP, you just change your forwarding to point to whatever
>email address(es) you get from your ISP.
POP3 mailbox, or to a different external address) would take effect
instantly.
>Also, do you plan to send email as xxx@<yourdomain> through PlusNet's
>SMTP relay?
to use PlusNet, because it doesn't involve the same limit on the length
of the authentication e-mail (quite a few of us using Gradwell/Turnpike
ran into this problem some years ago).
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 6, 2017, 7:03:19 PM3/6/17
to
In message <QYOWwUwb...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
up catchall forwarding that preserved what was before the @ in what it
forwards it to: the catchall forwarding I set up, to *@<me>.plus.com,
actually forwards to just that - to an asterisk @ <me>.plus.com;
however, (a) to my surprise PlusNet seem to have no problem with that,
(b) I'm not sure how, but when I view the emails in Turnpike (having
picked them up from PlusNet's server), they actually display in Turnpike
with what the sender put in the To: field, in the To: field.
the mail from there; that's included in the package at no extra cost.
The space the mail occupies uses up some of your allocated webspace,
though that's unlikely to be a problem to me; for the moment, the
forwarding to PlusNet seems to be working fine.)
that way anyway - I don't think I ever used Namesco/Inty's outgoing
server. I think they don't _guarantee_ outgoing mail with a From: of
anything other than PlusNet, but apart from one or two years ago, I
don't think I've ever had problems.
one: https://www.tsohost.com/web-hosting/cpanel-hosting, scroll down to
"Lite", 14.99/yr. (Don't be confused by the "10 Mailboxes"; you can have
whatever you like before the @, same as with <host>.demon.co.uk
subhosts.) I really only wanted the email, but it comes with 500 MB of
webspace, a bit more than the 25 (?) you got on the old demon! (They'll
even migrate the site for you if you had one!)
<Squawk> Pieces of eight!
<Squawk> Pieces of nine!
<SYSTEM HALTED: parroty error!>
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes:
>At 05:09:45 on Mon, 6 Mar 2017, John McCabe <jo...@mccabe.org.uk> wrote
>in <fc8339ab-dc7b-40d6...@googlegroups.com>:
>
>>On Sunday, 29 January 2017 19:20:11 UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> I signed up with Tsohost (for registration and hosting) last night.
>>>
>>> (What I thought would take maybe half an hour took four+.)
>>>
>>> I wanted to keep the <anything>@ option, that I have with
>>> @mysub.demon.co.uk, and also @myuser.plus.com .
>>>
>>> After some researching, I'd _sort of_ got confirmation from someone at
>>> Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
>>> would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
>
>Yes, it is simplicity itself to set up what they call default
>forwarding, to achieve precisely that - at least, in the cPanel setup
>which I have. I have no experience of their Cloud hosting, but others
>have said that the catchall forwarding works fine there too.
I think the one I have is the cPanel too. No, I found I _couldn't_ set
>At 05:09:45 on Mon, 6 Mar 2017, John McCabe <jo...@mccabe.org.uk> wrote
>in <fc8339ab-dc7b-40d6...@googlegroups.com>:
>
>>On Sunday, 29 January 2017 19:20:11 UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> I signed up with Tsohost (for registration and hosting) last night.
>>>
>>> (What I thought would take maybe half an hour took four+.)
>>>
>>> I wanted to keep the <anything>@ option, that I have with
>>> @mysub.demon.co.uk, and also @myuser.plus.com .
>>>
>>> After some researching, I'd _sort of_ got confirmation from someone at
>>> Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
>>> would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
>
>Yes, it is simplicity itself to set up what they call default
>forwarding, to achieve precisely that - at least, in the cPanel setup
>which I have. I have no experience of their Cloud hosting, but others
>have said that the catchall forwarding works fine there too.
up catchall forwarding that preserved what was before the @ in what it
forwards it to: the catchall forwarding I set up, to *@<me>.plus.com,
actually forwards to just that - to an asterisk @ <me>.plus.com;
however, (a) to my surprise PlusNet seem to have no problem with that,
(b) I'm not sure how, but when I view the emails in Turnpike (having
picked them up from PlusNet's server), they actually display in Turnpike
with what the sender put in the To: field, in the To: field.
>
>>Quick question - what do you plan to do if you move away from PlusNet?
>>
>>The reason for asking is that I get the impression (I may be wrong of
>>course) that the way you've implemented this is such that, if you move
>>to another ISP, you just change your forwarding to point to whatever
>>email address(es) you get from your ISP.
Exactly.
>>Quick question - what do you plan to do if you move away from PlusNet?
>>
>>The reason for asking is that I get the impression (I may be wrong of
>>course) that the way you've implemented this is such that, if you move
>>to another ISP, you just change your forwarding to point to whatever
>>email address(es) you get from your ISP.
>
>Changing the forwarding in TsoHost (e.g. from *@me.plus.com to a
>TsoHost POP3 mailbox, or to a different external address) would take
>effect instantly.
(The other alternative is to set up a mailbox at Tsohost, and collect
>Changing the forwarding in TsoHost (e.g. from *@me.plus.com to a
>TsoHost POP3 mailbox, or to a different external address) would take
>effect instantly.
the mail from there; that's included in the package at no extra cost.
The space the mail occupies uses up some of your allocated webspace,
though that's unlikely to be a problem to me; for the moment, the
forwarding to PlusNet seems to be working fine.)
>
>>Also, do you plan to send email as xxx@<yourdomain> through PlusNet's
>>SMTP relay?
Already doing so; doesn't seem to be a problem. I sent my demon emails
>>Also, do you plan to send email as xxx@<yourdomain> through PlusNet's
>>SMTP relay?
that way anyway - I don't think I ever used Namesco/Inty's outgoing
server. I think they don't _guarantee_ outgoing mail with a From: of
anything other than PlusNet, but apart from one or two years ago, I
don't think I've ever had problems.
>
>An alternative is to relay via TsoHost, although it is probably easier
>to use PlusNet, because it doesn't involve the same limit on the length
>of the authentication e-mail (quite a few of us using Gradwell/Turnpike
>ran into this problem some years ago).
You wanted a link to the hosting package I use - it's their cheapest
>An alternative is to relay via TsoHost, although it is probably easier
>to use PlusNet, because it doesn't involve the same limit on the length
>of the authentication e-mail (quite a few of us using Gradwell/Turnpike
>ran into this problem some years ago).
one: https://www.tsohost.com/web-hosting/cpanel-hosting, scroll down to
"Lite", 14.99/yr. (Don't be confused by the "10 Mailboxes"; you can have
whatever you like before the @, same as with <host>.demon.co.uk
subhosts.) I really only wanted the email, but it comes with 500 MB of
webspace, a bit more than the 25 (?) you got on the old demon! (They'll
even migrate the site for you if you had one!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
<Squawk> Pieces of eight!
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
<Squawk> Pieces of eight!
<Squawk> Pieces of nine!
<SYSTEM HALTED: parroty error!>
Molly Mockford
Mar 7, 2017, 12:40:02 AM3/7/17
to
At 00:02:29 on Tue, 7 Mar 2017, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote in <yX1sXeEV...@soft255.demon.co.uk>:
>I think the one I have is the cPanel too. No, I found I _couldn't_ set
>up catchall forwarding that preserved what was before the @ in what it
>forwards it to: the catchall forwarding I set up, to *@<me>.plus.com,
>actually forwards to just that - to an asterisk @ <me>.plus.com;
That's because you're trying to do it under the basic Forwarding rules
in the Email section. Catch-all is dealt with under the Default Address
rules in the same section. (Once you know that, it makes sense; but
it's not exactly intuitive. That seems to be the style of cPanel!)
> however, (a) to my surprise PlusNet seem to have no problem with that,
>(b) I'm not sure how, but when I view the emails in Turnpike (having
>picked them up from PlusNet's server), they actually display in
>Turnpike with what the sender put in the To: field, in the To: field.
The To: field does not get re-written - I would be pretty upset if it
did, as that would mess up my spam filtering!
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote in <yX1sXeEV...@soft255.demon.co.uk>:
>I think the one I have is the cPanel too. No, I found I _couldn't_ set
>up catchall forwarding that preserved what was before the @ in what it
>forwards it to: the catchall forwarding I set up, to *@<me>.plus.com,
>actually forwards to just that - to an asterisk @ <me>.plus.com;
in the Email section. Catch-all is dealt with under the Default Address
rules in the same section. (Once you know that, it makes sense; but
it's not exactly intuitive. That seems to be the style of cPanel!)
> however, (a) to my surprise PlusNet seem to have no problem with that,
>(b) I'm not sure how, but when I view the emails in Turnpike (having
>picked them up from PlusNet's server), they actually display in
>Turnpike with what the sender put in the To: field, in the To: field.
did, as that would mess up my spam filtering!
Andy
Mar 7, 2017, 4:20:24 AM3/7/17
to
In message <yX1sXeEV...@soft255.demon.co.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver
(John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote
[]
10!
(John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote
[]
> I really only wanted the email, but it comes with 500 MB of webspace,
>a bit more than the 25 (?) you got on the old demon!
20 - increased in an unprecedented fit of generosity from the original
>a bit more than the 25 (?) you got on the old demon!
10!
Message has been deleted
John McCabe
Mar 7, 2017, 5:27:47 AM3/7/17
to
On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 00:03:19 UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> At 05:09:45 on Mon, 6 Mar 2017, John McCabe <john@.....org.uk> wrote
the 500MB storage you're allowed with that package, which would be a bad
thing. Saying that, if you're using IMAP, I read earlier that PlusNet don't
like it much if all your mailboxes add up to more than 1GB storage which
seems a bit tight.
I mentioned this on another thread that I think you were part of, but
Zoho mail is another alternative. You get 25 mailboxes with up to 5GB per
mailbox, free of charge, with no advertising, hosting your domain's email.
I moved our band's emails there a while back and I've been fairly impressed
with it on the whole. You can treat the whole system a bit like a self-contained
organisation, set up mailboxes, forwarders, aliases and so on, access using
IMAP and/or webmail. You can also set up DKIM on Zoho, which is something
I can't do at my personal email hosting place (1&1), which is one of the
reasons I'm considering moving my personal email over there too (the other
one being that it's free and I currently pay £1.79pm to 1&1 for 5 mailboxes
@ 2GB max).
It might sound like I'm an employee trying to flog their services but I'm
not :-)
What I'm getting at really is that, now that you've got your domain name
registered, it might be worth considering abandoning all the forwarders,
that have to be changed if you decided to change ISP, and just access your
email directly from the source mailboxes @yourdomain.whatever.
Does that make sense?
> > > Also, do you plan to send email as xxx@<yourdomain> through PlusNet's
> > > SMTP relay?
> Already doing so; doesn't seem to be a problem. I sent my demon emails
> that way anyway - I don't think I ever used Namesco/Inty's outgoing
> server. I think they don't _guarantee_ outgoing mail with a From: of
> anything other than PlusNet, but apart from one or two years ago, I
> don't think I've ever had problems.
You're probably in a better position now, with your own domain name, than
you were sending Demon emails through Plusnet. It's probably worth looking
at setting up an SPF record in your DNS in your CPanel so that your domain
specifies PlusNet's relay as a valid sender for the domain. That's something
you wouldn't have been able to do with your Demon emails. You still won't
be able to use DKIM this way though as that depends on the sending relay
adding the DKIM record I believe.
FWIW - I would try to avoid sending through TSOHost's relays. As a provider
of cheap web-hosting, they're going to have all sorts of dodgy characters
using their relays and the chances of it being blacklisted are quite high
(I know this from experience - the Vidahost package I use goes through the
same relay and I had trouble with it before moving all our email).
> You wanted a link to the hosting package I use - it's their cheapest
> one: https://www.tsohost.com/web-hosting/cpanel-hosting, scroll down to
> "Lite", 14.99/yr. (Don't be confused by the "10 Mailboxes"; you can have
> whatever you like before the @, same as with <host>.demon.co.uk
> subhosts.) I really only wanted the email, but it comes with 500 MB of
> webspace, a bit more than the 25 (?) you got on the old demon! (They'll
> even migrate the site for you if you had one!)
Thanks for that. I'm already aware of a fair bit of what TSOHost can do for
you, mainly because I use one of their sister companies (Vidahost) for web
hosting for an organisation I'm involved with. Vidahost have been pretty
good so far. I'm on a cloud package with them, but I use Cpanel on a couple
of other sites I use.
Can you explain a bit more about 'Don't be confused by the "10 Mailboxes"'
comment? As I understand it from other cpanel sites I've used, there
normally is a genuine limit to the number of actual, 'physical' mailboxes,
although you can add aliases and forwarders etc all over the place.
> At 05:09:45 on Mon, 6 Mar 2017, John McCabe <john@.....org.uk> wrote
> in <fc8339ab-dc7b-40d6...@googlegroups.com>:
> > On Sunday, 29 January 2017 19:20:11 UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> > > I signed up with Tsohost (for registration and hosting) last night.
> > > (What I thought would take maybe half an hour took four+.)
> > > I wanted to keep the <anything>@ option, that I have with
> > > @mysub.demon.co.uk, and also @myuser.plus.com .
> > > After some researching, I'd _sort of_ got confirmation from someone at
> > > Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
> > > would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
> > On Sunday, 29 January 2017 19:20:11 UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> > > I signed up with Tsohost (for registration and hosting) last night.
> > > (What I thought would take maybe half an hour took four+.)
> > > I wanted to keep the <anything>@ option, that I have with
> > > @mysub.demon.co.uk, and also @myuser.plus.com .
> > > After some researching, I'd _sort of_ got confirmation from someone at
> > > Tsohost that I could set up forwarding, such that <whatever>@mydomain
> > > would be forwarded to <whatever>@me.plus.com .
> > Quick question - what do you plan to do if you move away from PlusNet?
> > The reason for asking is that I get the impression (I may be wrong of
> > course) that the way you've implemented this is such that, if you move
> > to another ISP, you just change your forwarding to point to whatever
> > email address(es) you get from your ISP.
> Exactly.
> > The reason for asking is that I get the impression (I may be wrong of
> > course) that the way you've implemented this is such that, if you move
> > to another ISP, you just change your forwarding to point to whatever
> > email address(es) you get from your ISP.
> Exactly.
> (The other alternative is to set up a mailbox at Tsohost, and collect
> the mail from there; that's included in the package at no extra cost.
> The space the mail occupies uses up some of your allocated webspace,
> though that's unlikely to be a problem to me; for the moment, the
> forwarding to PlusNet seems to be working fine.)
There are various other alternatives too but, yes, your email would eat into
> the mail from there; that's included in the package at no extra cost.
> The space the mail occupies uses up some of your allocated webspace,
> though that's unlikely to be a problem to me; for the moment, the
> forwarding to PlusNet seems to be working fine.)
the 500MB storage you're allowed with that package, which would be a bad
thing. Saying that, if you're using IMAP, I read earlier that PlusNet don't
like it much if all your mailboxes add up to more than 1GB storage which
seems a bit tight.
I mentioned this on another thread that I think you were part of, but
Zoho mail is another alternative. You get 25 mailboxes with up to 5GB per
mailbox, free of charge, with no advertising, hosting your domain's email.
I moved our band's emails there a while back and I've been fairly impressed
with it on the whole. You can treat the whole system a bit like a self-contained
organisation, set up mailboxes, forwarders, aliases and so on, access using
IMAP and/or webmail. You can also set up DKIM on Zoho, which is something
I can't do at my personal email hosting place (1&1), which is one of the
reasons I'm considering moving my personal email over there too (the other
one being that it's free and I currently pay £1.79pm to 1&1 for 5 mailboxes
@ 2GB max).
It might sound like I'm an employee trying to flog their services but I'm
not :-)
What I'm getting at really is that, now that you've got your domain name
registered, it might be worth considering abandoning all the forwarders,
that have to be changed if you decided to change ISP, and just access your
email directly from the source mailboxes @yourdomain.whatever.
Does that make sense?
> > > Also, do you plan to send email as xxx@<yourdomain> through PlusNet's
> > > SMTP relay?
> Already doing so; doesn't seem to be a problem. I sent my demon emails
> that way anyway - I don't think I ever used Namesco/Inty's outgoing
> server. I think they don't _guarantee_ outgoing mail with a From: of
> anything other than PlusNet, but apart from one or two years ago, I
> don't think I've ever had problems.
you were sending Demon emails through Plusnet. It's probably worth looking
at setting up an SPF record in your DNS in your CPanel so that your domain
specifies PlusNet's relay as a valid sender for the domain. That's something
you wouldn't have been able to do with your Demon emails. You still won't
be able to use DKIM this way though as that depends on the sending relay
adding the DKIM record I believe.
FWIW - I would try to avoid sending through TSOHost's relays. As a provider
of cheap web-hosting, they're going to have all sorts of dodgy characters
using their relays and the chances of it being blacklisted are quite high
(I know this from experience - the Vidahost package I use goes through the
same relay and I had trouble with it before moving all our email).
> You wanted a link to the hosting package I use - it's their cheapest
> one: https://www.tsohost.com/web-hosting/cpanel-hosting, scroll down to
> "Lite", 14.99/yr. (Don't be confused by the "10 Mailboxes"; you can have
> whatever you like before the @, same as with <host>.demon.co.uk
> subhosts.) I really only wanted the email, but it comes with 500 MB of
> webspace, a bit more than the 25 (?) you got on the old demon! (They'll
> even migrate the site for you if you had one!)
you, mainly because I use one of their sister companies (Vidahost) for web
hosting for an organisation I'm involved with. Vidahost have been pretty
good so far. I'm on a cloud package with them, but I use Cpanel on a couple
of other sites I use.
Can you explain a bit more about 'Don't be confused by the "10 Mailboxes"'
comment? As I understand it from other cpanel sites I've used, there
normally is a genuine limit to the number of actual, 'physical' mailboxes,
although you can add aliases and forwarders etc all over the place.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 8, 2017, 1:56:12 AM3/8/17
to
In message <Y6O04sxa...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
page. But the result is that they genuinely do forward to *@[plusnet],
i. e. something with "*." in it; (a) to my surprise PN don't mind that,
and (b) ...
(as the To: field shows my 255soft rather than PN).
than parts of modern York. - David Olusoga, RT 2016/11/5-11
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes:
>At 00:02:29 on Tue, 7 Mar 2017, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote in <yX1sXeEV...@soft255.demon.co.uk>:
>
>>I think the one I have is the cPanel too. No, I found I _couldn't_ set
>>up catchall forwarding that preserved what was before the @ in what it
>>forwards it to: the catchall forwarding I set up, to *@<me>.plus.com,
>>actually forwards to just that - to an asterisk @ <me>.plus.com;
>
>That's because you're trying to do it under the basic Forwarding rules
>in the Email section. Catch-all is dealt with under the Default
>Address rules in the same section. (Once you know that, it makes
>sense; but it's not exactly intuitive. That seems to be the style of
>cPanel!)
No, I set it up following the directions on their how to do catchall
>At 00:02:29 on Tue, 7 Mar 2017, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote in <yX1sXeEV...@soft255.demon.co.uk>:
>
>>I think the one I have is the cPanel too. No, I found I _couldn't_ set
>>up catchall forwarding that preserved what was before the @ in what it
>>forwards it to: the catchall forwarding I set up, to *@<me>.plus.com,
>>actually forwards to just that - to an asterisk @ <me>.plus.com;
>
>That's because you're trying to do it under the basic Forwarding rules
>in the Email section. Catch-all is dealt with under the Default
>Address rules in the same section. (Once you know that, it makes
>sense; but it's not exactly intuitive. That seems to be the style of
>cPanel!)
page. But the result is that they genuinely do forward to *@[plusnet],
i. e. something with "*." in it; (a) to my surprise PN don't mind that,
and (b) ...
>
>> however, (a) to my surprise PlusNet seem to have no problem with
>>that, (b) I'm not sure how, but when I view the emails in Turnpike
>>(having picked them up from PlusNet's server), they actually display
>>in Turnpike with what the sender put in the To: field, in the To: field.
>
>The To: field does not get re-written - I would be pretty upset if it
>did, as that would mess up my spam filtering!
... in view of that, the effect is what I wanted anyway, if not better
>> however, (a) to my surprise PlusNet seem to have no problem with
>>that, (b) I'm not sure how, but when I view the emails in Turnpike
>>(having picked them up from PlusNet's server), they actually display
>>in Turnpike with what the sender put in the To: field, in the To: field.
>
>The To: field does not get re-written - I would be pretty upset if it
>did, as that would mess up my spam filtering!
(as the To: field shows my 255soft rather than PN).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
... there were parts of Roman York that appear to be more ethnically mixed
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
than parts of modern York. - David Olusoga, RT 2016/11/5-11
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 8, 2017, 1:58:11 AM3/8/17
to
In message <wagtqZAc...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>, Andy
<an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes:
>In message <yX1sXeEV...@soft255.demon.co.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver
>(John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote
>[]
>> I really only wanted the email, but it comes with 500 MB of webspace,
>>a bit more than the 25 (?) you got on the old demon!
>
>20 - increased in an unprecedented fit of generosity from the original
>10!
I think it was originally 5!
>In message <yX1sXeEV...@soft255.demon.co.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver
>(John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote
>[]
>> I really only wanted the email, but it comes with 500 MB of webspace,
>>a bit more than the 25 (?) you got on the old demon!
>
>20 - increased in an unprecedented fit of generosity from the original
>10!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 8, 2017, 2:18:17 AM3/8/17
to
In message <4e155721-d332-4ab7...@googlegroups.com>, John
McCabe <jo...@mccabe.org.uk> writes:
[]
of date!], that's unlikely to be a problem - I really only bought the
domain to protect me from the sort of email shenanigans that Demon, then
Namesco/Inty, and now I understand Freeserve/Wanadoo/Orange/EE are
doing.)
>thing. Saying that, if you're using IMAP, I read earlier that PlusNet don't
>like it much if all your mailboxes add up to more than 1GB storage which
>seems a bit tight.
I suppose so, but I honestly can't see any real advantage - _for me_ -
for IMAP, or me ever using it. I certainly wouldn't ever rely on
_keeping_ any email on a cloud.
all the mail for free? How do they make a profit?
Having said that, Tsohost's 14.99 a year package is so down in the
noise, I'll almost certainly stay with that, at least while it's working
as well as it is so far. I'll try to remember Zoho in case things
change, though (though I'd probably just switch all to another
Tsohost-like provider).
[]
collect directly from Tsohost, it would (though not a problem for me at
the moment) eat into the 500M storage space I have there until I
collected it.
>
>Does that make sense?
(Yes.)
[]
are concerned: previously I was sending emails through them that were
From: ...demon..., not I'm sending emails through them that are From
...255soft.uk . They seem happy so far to pass them on to the big wide
world; at least, I've not had any indication any aren't getting out.
>at setting up an SPF record in your DNS in your CPanel so that your domain
>specifies PlusNet's relay as a valid sender for the domain. That's something
You're probably right! But (a) that went right over my head in terms of
what I'd have to do, (b) I'm not sure what the significance to Tsohost
is of how my emails "From" mydomain are reaching the world; they only
have to deal with incoming ones.
>you wouldn't have been able to do with your Demon emails. You still won't
>be able to use DKIM this way though as that depends on the sending relay
>adding the DKIM record I believe.
(Again, I have no idea what DKIM is!)
started getting problems with (sending via) PN, but you're probably
right about their server having a poor reputation for those reasons.
[]
for the benefit of anyone else like me, who wasn't at all sure about the
difference between aliases and mailboxes. (I think I am now - mailboxes
are for physically separate users, who may collect their mail
separately. As there's only one of me and I collect email for all my
aliases, it's irrelevant to me.)
McCabe <jo...@mccabe.org.uk> writes:
[]
>There are various other alternatives too but, yes, your email would eat into
>the 500MB storage you're allowed with that package, which would be a bad
(Though as my website is the old Demon one [and years if not decades out
>the 500MB storage you're allowed with that package, which would be a bad
of date!], that's unlikely to be a problem - I really only bought the
domain to protect me from the sort of email shenanigans that Demon, then
Namesco/Inty, and now I understand Freeserve/Wanadoo/Orange/EE are
doing.)
>thing. Saying that, if you're using IMAP, I read earlier that PlusNet don't
>like it much if all your mailboxes add up to more than 1GB storage which
>seems a bit tight.
for IMAP, or me ever using it. I certainly wouldn't ever rely on
_keeping_ any email on a cloud.
>
>I mentioned this on another thread that I think you were part of, but
>Zoho mail is another alternative. You get 25 mailboxes with up to 5GB per
>mailbox, free of charge, with no advertising, hosting your domain's email.
Sounds good; so I could just have the domain registered, and they'd do
>I mentioned this on another thread that I think you were part of, but
>Zoho mail is another alternative. You get 25 mailboxes with up to 5GB per
>mailbox, free of charge, with no advertising, hosting your domain's email.
all the mail for free? How do they make a profit?
Having said that, Tsohost's 14.99 a year package is so down in the
noise, I'll almost certainly stay with that, at least while it's working
as well as it is so far. I'll try to remember Zoho in case things
change, though (though I'd probably just switch all to another
Tsohost-like provider).
[]
>It might sound like I'm an employee trying to flog their services but I'm
>not :-)
No, I didn't get that: just a satisfied customer.
>not :-)
>
>What I'm getting at really is that, now that you've got your domain name
>registered, it might be worth considering abandoning all the forwarders,
>that have to be changed if you decided to change ISP, and just access your
>email directly from the source mailboxes @yourdomain.whatever.
I only have the one forwarder, a catchall. And as discussed, if I _did_
>What I'm getting at really is that, now that you've got your domain name
>registered, it might be worth considering abandoning all the forwarders,
>that have to be changed if you decided to change ISP, and just access your
>email directly from the source mailboxes @yourdomain.whatever.
collect directly from Tsohost, it would (though not a problem for me at
the moment) eat into the 500M storage space I have there until I
collected it.
>
>Does that make sense?
(Yes.)
[]
>You're probably in a better position now, with your own domain name, than
>you were sending Demon emails through Plusnet. It's probably worth looking
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't see the difference as far as PN
>you were sending Demon emails through Plusnet. It's probably worth looking
are concerned: previously I was sending emails through them that were
From: ...demon..., not I'm sending emails through them that are From
...255soft.uk . They seem happy so far to pass them on to the big wide
world; at least, I've not had any indication any aren't getting out.
>at setting up an SPF record in your DNS in your CPanel so that your domain
>specifies PlusNet's relay as a valid sender for the domain. That's something
what I'd have to do, (b) I'm not sure what the significance to Tsohost
is of how my emails "From" mydomain are reaching the world; they only
have to deal with incoming ones.
>you wouldn't have been able to do with your Demon emails. You still won't
>be able to use DKIM this way though as that depends on the sending relay
>adding the DKIM record I believe.
>
>FWIW - I would try to avoid sending through TSOHost's relays. As a provider
>of cheap web-hosting, they're going to have all sorts of dodgy characters
>using their relays and the chances of it being blacklisted are quite high
>(I know this from experience - the Vidahost package I use goes through the
>same relay and I had trouble with it before moving all our email).
Interesting point. I had thought of maybe using them if I suddenly
>FWIW - I would try to avoid sending through TSOHost's relays. As a provider
>of cheap web-hosting, they're going to have all sorts of dodgy characters
>using their relays and the chances of it being blacklisted are quite high
>(I know this from experience - the Vidahost package I use goes through the
>same relay and I had trouble with it before moving all our email).
started getting problems with (sending via) PN, but you're probably
right about their server having a poor reputation for those reasons.
>
>> You wanted a link to the hosting package I use - it's their cheapest
>> one: https://www.tsohost.com/web-hosting/cpanel-hosting, scroll down to
[]
>> You wanted a link to the hosting package I use - it's their cheapest
>> one: https://www.tsohost.com/web-hosting/cpanel-hosting, scroll down to
>Thanks for that. I'm already aware of a fair bit of what TSOHost can do for
YW
[]
>Can you explain a bit more about 'Don't be confused by the "10 Mailboxes"'
>comment? As I understand it from other cpanel sites I've used, there
>normally is a genuine limit to the number of actual, 'physical' mailboxes,
>although you can add aliases and forwarders etc all over the place.
Sounds like you're familiar with all the concepts anyway. I put that in
>comment? As I understand it from other cpanel sites I've used, there
>normally is a genuine limit to the number of actual, 'physical' mailboxes,
>although you can add aliases and forwarders etc all over the place.
for the benefit of anyone else like me, who wasn't at all sure about the
difference between aliases and mailboxes. (I think I am now - mailboxes
are for physically separate users, who may collect their mail
separately. As there's only one of me and I collect email for all my
aliases, it's irrelevant to me.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Malcolm Loades
Mar 8, 2017, 5:14:31 AM3/8/17
to
On 07/03/2017 10:26, John McCabe wrote:
> FWIW - I would try to avoid sending through TSOHost's relays. As a provider
> of cheap web-hosting, they're going to have all sorts of dodgy characters
> using their relays and the chances of it being blacklisted are quite high
> (I know this from experience - the Vidahost package I use goes through the
> same relay and I had trouble with it before moving all our email).
I know nothing of posting from Vidahost but I have many users posting
> FWIW - I would try to avoid sending through TSOHost's relays. As a provider
> of cheap web-hosting, they're going to have all sorts of dodgy characters
> using their relays and the chances of it being blacklisted are quite high
> (I know this from experience - the Vidahost package I use goes through the
> same relay and I had trouble with it before moving all our email).
via mail3.gridhost.co.uk and none of them has ever experienced a problem.
But if you're suspicious of using other's relays why not send mail
directly? I've used hMailServer, which is free, for years and find it
very good. That way you control everything but more importantly you
have logs covering the whole delivery process.
Malcolm
David Rance
Mar 8, 2017, 6:23:50 AM3/8/17
to
David
--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK
Chris S
Mar 8, 2017, 9:30:55 AM3/8/17
to
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:17:08 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>FWIW - I would try to avoid sending through TSOHost's relays. As a provider
>>of cheap web-hosting, they're going to have all sorts of dodgy characters
>>using their relays and the chances of it being blacklisted are quite high
>>(I know this from experience - the Vidahost package I use goes through the
>>same relay and I had trouble with it before moving all our email).
>
>Interesting point. I had thought of maybe using them if I suddenly
>started getting problems with (sending via) PN, but you're probably
>right about their server having a poor reputation for those reasons.
One person claims experience of blacklisting using Tsohost's mail
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>FWIW - I would try to avoid sending through TSOHost's relays. As a provider
>>of cheap web-hosting, they're going to have all sorts of dodgy characters
>>using their relays and the chances of it being blacklisted are quite high
>>(I know this from experience - the Vidahost package I use goes through the
>>same relay and I had trouble with it before moving all our email).
>
>Interesting point. I had thought of maybe using them if I suddenly
>started getting problems with (sending via) PN, but you're probably
>right about their server having a poor reputation for those reasons.
relay servers. I, on the other hand, am not aware of any blacklisting
during my several years use of Tsohost's mail relay servers.
Neither of those statements should be used to infer any "reputation"
that Tsohost's mail relay servers may or may not have. They simply
represent two peoples differeing experience.
Chris S
Demon Customer 1993 - 2015; now with Zen for connectivity and Tsohost
for web/email hosting (last Gradwell hosted domains migrated October 2016).
John McCabe
Mar 15, 2017, 7:25:27 PM3/15/17
to
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 10:14:31 UTC, Malcolm Loades wrote:
> On 07/03/2017 10:26, John McCabe wrote:
>
> > FWIW - I would try to avoid sending through TSOHost's relays. As a provider
> > of cheap web-hosting, they're going to have all sorts of dodgy characters
> > using their relays and the chances of it being blacklisted are quite high
> > (I know this from experience - the Vidahost package I use goes through the
> > same relay and I had trouble with it before moving all our email).
>
> I know nothing of posting from Vidahost but I have many users posting
> via mail3.gridhost.co.uk and none of them has ever experienced a problem.
mail3.gridhost.co.uk is the same relay as is used for Vidahost, however, that's interesting, and made me look again at my records about this issue. It looks like it might just have been AOL I was having a problem with; loads of email going to AOL recipients was rejected and, at the time, the Gridhost mail relay showed a reputation of "neutral" at https://postmaster.aol.com/ip-reputation#95.142.156.6. It's now showing as good so perhaps it was early days.
> On 07/03/2017 10:26, John McCabe wrote:
>
> > FWIW - I would try to avoid sending through TSOHost's relays. As a provider
> > of cheap web-hosting, they're going to have all sorts of dodgy characters
> > using their relays and the chances of it being blacklisted are quite high
> > (I know this from experience - the Vidahost package I use goes through the
> > same relay and I had trouble with it before moving all our email).
>
> I know nothing of posting from Vidahost but I have many users posting
> via mail3.gridhost.co.uk and none of them has ever experienced a problem.
John McCabe
Mar 15, 2017, 7:45:51 PM3/15/17
to
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 07:18:17 UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <4e155721-d332-4ab7...@googlegroups.com>, John
> McCabe <john@....org.uk> writes:
> In message <4e155721-d332-4ab7...@googlegroups.com>, John
> []
<..snip..>
> >thing. Saying that, if you're using IMAP, I read earlier that PlusNet don't
> >like it much if all your mailboxes add up to more than 1GB storage which
> >seems a bit tight.
>
> I suppose so, but I honestly can't see any real advantage - _for me_ -
> for IMAP, or me ever using it. I certainly wouldn't ever rely on
> _keeping_ any email on a cloud.
> >I mentioned this on another thread that I think you were part of, but
> >Zoho mail is another alternative. You get 25 mailboxes with up to 5GB per
> >mailbox, free of charge, with no advertising, hosting your domain's email.
>
> Sounds good; so I could just have the domain registered, and they'd do
> all the mail for free? How do they make a profit?
> Having said that, Tsohost's 14.99 a year package is so down in the
> noise, I'll almost certainly stay with that, at least while it's working
> as well as it is so far. I'll try to remember Zoho in case things
> change, though (though I'd probably just switch all to another
> Tsohost-like provider).
<..snip..>
> >You're probably in a better position now, with your own domain name, than
> >you were sending Demon emails through Plusnet. It's probably worth looking
> I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't see the difference as far as PN
> are concerned: previously I was sending emails through them that were
> From: ...demon..., not I'm sending emails through them that are From
> ...255soft.uk . They seem happy so far to pass them on to the big wide
> world; at least, I've not had any indication any aren't getting out.
To be honest, I haven't seen that as a big issue so far because a lot of stuff seems to do a "soft fail"; i.e. it gets delivered anyway, but might end up in a junk folder instead of an inbox. That might change in future though.
DKIM is a more complicated thing that use private and public key stuff to generate a signature. I don't fully understand that, but it needs to be added by one end and checked at the other end.
> You're probably right! But (a) that went right over my head in terms of
> what I'd have to do, (b) I'm not sure what the significance to Tsohost
> is of how my emails "From" mydomain are reaching the world; they only
> have to deal with incoming ones.
> >you wouldn't have been able to do with your Demon emails. You still won't
> >be able to use DKIM this way though as that depends on the sending relay
> >adding the DKIM record I believe.
>
> (Again, I have no idea what DKIM is!)
> >FWIW - I would try to avoid sending through TSOHost's relays. As a provider
> >of cheap web-hosting, they're going to have all sorts of dodgy characters
> >using their relays and the chances of it being blacklisted are quite high
> >(I know this from experience - the Vidahost package I use goes through the
> >same relay and I had trouble with it before moving all our email).
> Interesting point. I had thought of maybe using them if I suddenly
> started getting problems with (sending via) PN, but you're probably
> right about their server having a poor reputation for those reasons.
> >Can you explain a bit more about 'Don't be confused by the "10 Mailboxes"'
> >comment? As I understand it from other cpanel sites I've used, there
> >normally is a genuine limit to the number of actual, 'physical' mailboxes,
> >although you can add aliases and forwarders etc all over the place.
> Sounds like you're familiar with all the concepts anyway. I put that in
> for the benefit of anyone else like me, who wasn't at all sure about the
> difference between aliases and mailboxes. (I think I am now - mailboxes
> are for physically separate users, who may collect their mail
> separately. As there's only one of me and I collect email for all my
> aliases, it's irrelevant to me.)
Malcolm Loades
Mar 16, 2017, 6:15:41 AM3/16/17
to
On 15/03/2017 23:25, John McCabe wrote:
>
> mail3.gridhost.co.uk is the same relay as is used for Vidahost, however, that's interesting, and made me look again at my records about this issue. It looks like it might just have been AOL I was having a problem with; loads of email going to AOL recipients was rejected and, at the time, the Gridhost mail relay showed a reputation of "neutral" at https://postmaster.aol.com/ip-reputation#95.142.156.6. It's now showing as good so perhaps it was early days.
>
95.142.156.6 is mail3.eqx.gridhost.co.uk whereas mail3.gridhost.co.uk is
>
> mail3.gridhost.co.uk is the same relay as is used for Vidahost, however, that's interesting, and made me look again at my records about this issue. It looks like it might just have been AOL I was having a problem with; loads of email going to AOL recipients was rejected and, at the time, the Gridhost mail relay showed a reputation of "neutral" at https://postmaster.aol.com/ip-reputation#95.142.156.6. It's now showing as good so perhaps it was early days.
>
95.142.156.18 Vidahost do seem to be using a different relay to tsohost
customers.
Malcolm
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 18, 2017, 7:59:21 AM3/18/17
to
In message <7646fb18-1317-426c...@googlegroups.com>, John
everything, other than Skype and TeamViewer, for which I have a W7
machine with a big screen which makes TeamViewer work better. I back up
the machine, including the Turnpike folders, from time to time. I do
very occasionally read emails on my (Android 4.2 IIRR) 'phone as well,
but I have that set (still POP I _think_) to "leave on server".
(especially after recent happenings!) be afraid they'd suddenly withdraw
the service (and/or start charging a lot for it).
but really only because the service was included; to say I actually
_use_ it would be pushing it. I _do_ intend to use it should I need to
do file transfer (especially if to more than about two people), i. e.
use it like dropbox/picasa/snapwhatever but without the garbage. (My
experience with other people's use of these free sharing sites -
especially the ones oriented mainly towards pictures - is that, for the
recipient at least, they involve much spurious scripting, which falls
over if accessed with an older browser.)
sending via PlusNet. Which so far I haven't - even when I've been
staying with friends or relation and using a non-PlusNet connection.
[]
I vaguely remember, back in the early days of Demon dialup, having the
option to send emails direct, rather than (I think) via Demon's outgoing
mail server; I _think_ they discouraged this, though providing the
facility, on the grounds that the recipient had to be online (or be
paying for a machine that was) to receive it. Is all of the above
_anything_ to do with that, or was that something different (perhaps to
do with the "push" [or was it "pull"] method Demon had of handling email
in those days)? I think I tried it once or twice out of curiosity (I
think with success), but certainly didn't use it normally.
children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of suitability for
a
five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face (The Times, 1999-2-10):
p12
McCabe <jo...@mccabe.org.uk> writes:
>On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 07:18:17 UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 07:18:17 UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> I suppose so, but I honestly can't see any real advantage - _for me_ -
>> for IMAP, or me ever using it. I certainly wouldn't ever rely on
>> _keeping_ any email on a cloud.
>
>Oh? Are you using POP3 then? Presumably you keep backups of all your
>mail? Multiple devices, multiple locations, all synchronised?
No, one device (this one), on which I do all my - well, more or less
>> for IMAP, or me ever using it. I certainly wouldn't ever rely on
>> _keeping_ any email on a cloud.
>
>Oh? Are you using POP3 then? Presumably you keep backups of all your
>mail? Multiple devices, multiple locations, all synchronised?
everything, other than Skype and TeamViewer, for which I have a W7
machine with a big screen which makes TeamViewer work better. I back up
the machine, including the Turnpike folders, from time to time. I do
very occasionally read emails on my (Android 4.2 IIRR) 'phone as well,
but I have that set (still POP I _think_) to "leave on server".
>
>> >I mentioned this on another thread that I think you were part of, but
>> >Zoho mail is another alternative. You get 25 mailboxes with up to 5GB per
>> >mailbox, free of charge, with no advertising, hosting your domain's email.
>>
>> Sounds good; so I could just have the domain registered, and they'd do
>> all the mail for free? How do they make a profit?
>
>From SMEs basically I think. They provide a sort of Microsoft Exchange
>type service so you don't have to pay exorbitant licence fees to MS and
>offer a free option too.
So basically one _can_ use them just for email, for no money at all? I'd
>> >I mentioned this on another thread that I think you were part of, but
>> >Zoho mail is another alternative. You get 25 mailboxes with up to 5GB per
>> >mailbox, free of charge, with no advertising, hosting your domain's email.
>>
>> Sounds good; so I could just have the domain registered, and they'd do
>> all the mail for free? How do they make a profit?
>
>From SMEs basically I think. They provide a sort of Microsoft Exchange
>type service so you don't have to pay exorbitant licence fees to MS and
>offer a free option too.
(especially after recent happenings!) be afraid they'd suddenly withdraw
the service (and/or start charging a lot for it).
>
>> Having said that, Tsohost's 14.99 a year package is so down in the
>> noise, I'll almost certainly stay with that, at least while it's working
>> as well as it is so far. I'll try to remember Zoho in case things
>> change, though (though I'd probably just switch all to another
>> Tsohost-like provider).
>
>Do you actually use the web hosting?
Well, I've transferred my tiny (and years out of date) ex-Demon site,
>> Having said that, Tsohost's 14.99 a year package is so down in the
>> noise, I'll almost certainly stay with that, at least while it's working
>> as well as it is so far. I'll try to remember Zoho in case things
>> change, though (though I'd probably just switch all to another
>> Tsohost-like provider).
>
>Do you actually use the web hosting?
but really only because the service was included; to say I actually
_use_ it would be pushing it. I _do_ intend to use it should I need to
do file transfer (especially if to more than about two people), i. e.
use it like dropbox/picasa/snapwhatever but without the garbage. (My
experience with other people's use of these free sharing sites -
especially the ones oriented mainly towards pictures - is that, for the
recipient at least, they involve much spurious scripting, which falls
over if accessed with an older browser.)
>
><..snip..>
>
>> >You're probably in a better position now, with your own domain name, than
>> >you were sending Demon emails through Plusnet. It's probably worth looking
[]
><..snip..>
>
>> >You're probably in a better position now, with your own domain name, than
>> >you were sending Demon emails through Plusnet. It's probably worth looking
>The difference isn't with sending through Plusnet as such; it's the
>other end. The point of SPF (and, to some extent DKIM) is that, when an
>email is received at the far end, before it's delivered the mail
>exchanger may check that the information in that email provides
>evidence that it's been sent via a relay that the domain specifies as
>being authorised to send the message. So, for example, if your message
>is from x...@yyy.com, and the receiving mail exchanger receives it from
>a relay at plus.net, the receiving end will look up the DNS on yyy.com
>to see if plus.net is authorised to send mail for yyy.com. If it isn't,
>then the receiving end might just reject the message.
Understood (through a glass darkly).
>other end. The point of SPF (and, to some extent DKIM) is that, when an
>email is received at the far end, before it's delivered the mail
>exchanger may check that the information in that email provides
>evidence that it's been sent via a relay that the domain specifies as
>being authorised to send the message. So, for example, if your message
>is from x...@yyy.com, and the receiving mail exchanger receives it from
>a relay at plus.net, the receiving end will look up the DNS on yyy.com
>to see if plus.net is authorised to send mail for yyy.com. If it isn't,
>then the receiving end might just reject the message.
>
>To be honest, I haven't seen that as a big issue so far because a lot
>of stuff seems to do a "soft fail"; i.e. it gets delivered anyway, but
>might end up in a junk folder instead of an inbox. That might change in
>future though.
[]
>To be honest, I haven't seen that as a big issue so far because a lot
>of stuff seems to do a "soft fail"; i.e. it gets delivered anyway, but
>might end up in a junk folder instead of an inbox. That might change in
>future though.
>> You're probably right! But (a) that went right over my head in terms of
>> what I'd have to do, (b) I'm not sure what the significance to Tsohost
>> is of how my emails "From" mydomain are reaching the world; they only
>> have to deal with incoming ones.
>
>Yes - nothing to do with TSO host in this case, unless you send through
>mail3.gridhost.co.uk or whatever they call it.
I guess I'll have to learn to do so quickly if I ever have problems
>> what I'd have to do, (b) I'm not sure what the significance to Tsohost
>> is of how my emails "From" mydomain are reaching the world; they only
>> have to deal with incoming ones.
>
>Yes - nothing to do with TSO host in this case, unless you send through
>mail3.gridhost.co.uk or whatever they call it.
sending via PlusNet. Which so far I haven't - even when I've been
staying with friends or relation and using a non-PlusNet connection.
[]
>> >FWIW - I would try to avoid sending through TSOHost's relays. As a provider
>> >of cheap web-hosting, they're going to have all sorts of dodgy characters
[]
>> >of cheap web-hosting, they're going to have all sorts of dodgy characters
>It's a reasonable point but, as I mentioned in my other message a few
>minutes ago, I may have been a bit wotsisface (can't think of the word
(unfair?)
>minutes ago, I may have been a bit wotsisface (can't think of the word
>I mean at the moment) to TSO host on that one. It may be much better
>than other hosts I've used and it could just've been AOL that I had a
>problem with delivery to.
[]
>than other hosts I've used and it could just've been AOL that I had a
>problem with delivery to.
I vaguely remember, back in the early days of Demon dialup, having the
option to send emails direct, rather than (I think) via Demon's outgoing
mail server; I _think_ they discouraged this, though providing the
facility, on the grounds that the recipient had to be online (or be
paying for a machine that was) to receive it. Is all of the above
_anything_ to do with that, or was that something different (perhaps to
do with the "push" [or was it "pull"] method Demon had of handling email
in those days)? I think I tried it once or twice out of curiosity (I
think with success), but certainly didn't use it normally.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet] to their
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of suitability for
a
five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face (The Times, 1999-2-10):
p12
John McCabe
Mar 28, 2017, 6:10:50 PM3/28/17
to
Cliff Frisby
Apr 8, 2017, 4:28:52 PM4/8/17
to
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
<snip>
> I vaguely remember, back in the early days of Demon dialup, having the
> option to send emails direct, rather than (I think) via Demon's outgoing
> mail server;
Did Demon actually offer an outgoing relay/smarthost at the outset? If they
> option to send emails direct, rather than (I think) via Demon's outgoing
> mail server;
did, I wasn't aware of it, and can't have been using it, because I didn't do
any particular configuring for my .demon.co.uk email -- it just worked, both
incoming and outgoing, and I wasn't using any Demon-supplied software.)
Didn't the smarthost come into existence at the same time as POP3/SDPS
option?
> I _think_ they discouraged this, though providing the
> facility, on the grounds that the recipient had to be online (or be
> paying for a machine that was) to receive it.
reason. There would normally be a permanently connected mail exchanger for
such a recipient.
<snip>
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 9, 2017, 9:28:10 AM4/9/17
to
In message <ocbh0c$r6u$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
remember there was _some_ way offered of sending emails that was
different to the usual. [_Maybe_ it involved the SMTP-push (?) method
that Demon themselves used?]
the email process!) remember what this other mechanism was? As I say, I
don't remember ever using it, other than possibly just to try it out (in
which case I can't remember the results of such trying).
<spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
><snip>
>> I vaguely remember, back in the early days of Demon dialup, having the
>> option to send emails direct, rather than (I think) via Demon's outgoing
>> mail server;
>
>Did Demon actually offer an outgoing relay/smarthost at the outset? If they
>did, I wasn't aware of it, and can't have been using it, because I didn't do
>any particular configuring for my .demon.co.uk email -- it just worked, both
>incoming and outgoing, and I wasn't using any Demon-supplied software.)
I don't remember: it was <quavery voice>Many Years Ago</quavery>! I _do_
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
><snip>
>> I vaguely remember, back in the early days of Demon dialup, having the
>> option to send emails direct, rather than (I think) via Demon's outgoing
>> mail server;
>
>Did Demon actually offer an outgoing relay/smarthost at the outset? If they
>did, I wasn't aware of it, and can't have been using it, because I didn't do
>any particular configuring for my .demon.co.uk email -- it just worked, both
>incoming and outgoing, and I wasn't using any Demon-supplied software.)
remember there was _some_ way offered of sending emails that was
different to the usual. [_Maybe_ it involved the SMTP-push (?) method
that Demon themselves used?]
>
>Didn't the smarthost come into existence at the same time as POP3/SDPS
>option?
>
>> I _think_ they discouraged this, though providing the
>> facility, on the grounds that the recipient had to be online (or be
>> paying for a machine that was) to receive it.
>
>Even if they did discourage it, I don't think that could have been the
>reason. There would normally be a permanently connected mail exchanger for
>such a recipient.
>
><snip>
>
Can anyone with a better memory (and probably a better understanding of
>Didn't the smarthost come into existence at the same time as POP3/SDPS
>option?
>
>> I _think_ they discouraged this, though providing the
>> facility, on the grounds that the recipient had to be online (or be
>> paying for a machine that was) to receive it.
>
>Even if they did discourage it, I don't think that could have been the
>reason. There would normally be a permanently connected mail exchanger for
>such a recipient.
>
><snip>
>
the email process!) remember what this other mechanism was? As I say, I
don't remember ever using it, other than possibly just to try it out (in
which case I can't remember the results of such trying).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
User Error: Replace user, hit any key to continue.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Cliff Frisby
Apr 9, 2017, 3:17:12 PM4/9/17
to
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <ocbh0c$r6u$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
> <spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>> I vaguely remember, back in the early days of Demon dialup, having the
>>> option to send emails direct, rather than (I think) via Demon's outgoing
>>> mail server;
>>
>>Did Demon actually offer an outgoing relay/smarthost at the outset? If
>>they did, I wasn't aware of it, and can't have been using it, because I
>>didn't do any particular configuring for my .demon.co.uk email -- it just
>>worked, both incoming and outgoing, and I wasn't using any Demon-supplied
>>software.)
>
> I don't remember: it was <quavery voice>Many Years Ago</quavery>! I _do_
> remember there was _some_ way offered of sending emails that was
> different to the usual. [_Maybe_ it involved the SMTP-push (?) method
> that Demon themselves used?]
>>
Their first-generation webmail interface?
> In message <ocbh0c$r6u$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
> <spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>> I vaguely remember, back in the early days of Demon dialup, having the
>>> option to send emails direct, rather than (I think) via Demon's outgoing
>>> mail server;
>>
>>Did Demon actually offer an outgoing relay/smarthost at the outset? If
>>they did, I wasn't aware of it, and can't have been using it, because I
>>didn't do any particular configuring for my .demon.co.uk email -- it just
>>worked, both incoming and outgoing, and I wasn't using any Demon-supplied
>>software.)
>
> I don't remember: it was <quavery voice>Many Years Ago</quavery>! I _do_
> remember there was _some_ way offered of sending emails that was
> different to the usual. [_Maybe_ it involved the SMTP-push (?) method
> that Demon themselves used?]
>>
<snip>
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 9, 2017, 5:44:19 PM4/9/17
to
In message <oce160$vi1$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
No, it wasn't that: it was something that could be done from DOS (I
can't remember whether via the modified-KA9Q suite, though I think so).
important institution in this country. - John Humphrys, Radio Times
7-13/06/2003
can't remember whether via the modified-KA9Q suite, though I think so).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Radio 4 is the civilising influence in this country ... I think it is the most
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
important institution in this country. - John Humphrys, Radio Times
7-13/06/2003
Bob Evans
Apr 10, 2017, 10:44:46 AM4/10/17
to
In article <ocbh0c$r6u$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
<spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> wrote
the years (who would intercept or block their users' outbound SMTP
connections), the option to deliver emails direct-to-MX rather than via
Demon's smarthosts (SMTP relays) was always available to Demon TAM
customers.
>Did Demon actually offer an outgoing relay/smarthost at the outset? If they
>did, I wasn't aware of it, and can't have been using it, because I didn't do
>any particular configuring for my .demon.co.uk email -- it just worked, both
>incoming and outgoing, and I wasn't using any Demon-supplied software.)
Probably your SMTP client did direct-to-MX delivery. However the Demon
smarthosts were available from the very early days (right from the
beginning AFAICR).
Some d.s regulars may recall the Demon "DIS" package, a derivative of
the KA9Q NOS software for DOS, that Demon used to supply pre-Turnpike.
DIS was pre-configured to send outbound mail via post.demon.co.uk and
contained an SMTP server to receive inbound mail from the Demon puntmail
servers.
>Didn't the smarthost come into existence at the same time as POP3/SDPS
>option?
The original inbound mail delivery method (for TAM customers) was by
SMTP, typically to the SMTP servers in DIS or Turnpike.
SDPS came somewhat later, in early 1997, providing POP3 collection as a
convenience for customers not wishing to use DIS or Turnpike or to run
their own full mail server on premises. Presumably such customers were
starting to succumb to the lures of glitzier MUAs such as Outlook
Express...
>> I _think_ they discouraged this, though providing the
>> facility, on the grounds that the recipient had to be online (or be
>> paying for a machine that was) to receive it.
>Even if they did discourage it, I don't think that could have been the
>reason. There would normally be a permanently connected mail exchanger for
>such a recipient.
No, even with SMTP delivery of inbound mail, the existence of the Demon
punts meant that there was no need for TAM customers to run an SMTP
server 24x7.
--
Bob Evans
<spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> I vaguely remember, back in the early days of Demon dialup, having the
>> option to send emails direct, rather than (I think) via Demon's outgoing
>> mail server;
In contrast to the more controlling policies of many consumer ISPs over
>> I vaguely remember, back in the early days of Demon dialup, having the
>> option to send emails direct, rather than (I think) via Demon's outgoing
>> mail server;
the years (who would intercept or block their users' outbound SMTP
connections), the option to deliver emails direct-to-MX rather than via
Demon's smarthosts (SMTP relays) was always available to Demon TAM
customers.
>Did Demon actually offer an outgoing relay/smarthost at the outset? If they
>did, I wasn't aware of it, and can't have been using it, because I didn't do
>any particular configuring for my .demon.co.uk email -- it just worked, both
>incoming and outgoing, and I wasn't using any Demon-supplied software.)
smarthosts were available from the very early days (right from the
beginning AFAICR).
Some d.s regulars may recall the Demon "DIS" package, a derivative of
the KA9Q NOS software for DOS, that Demon used to supply pre-Turnpike.
DIS was pre-configured to send outbound mail via post.demon.co.uk and
contained an SMTP server to receive inbound mail from the Demon puntmail
servers.
>Didn't the smarthost come into existence at the same time as POP3/SDPS
>option?
SMTP, typically to the SMTP servers in DIS or Turnpike.
SDPS came somewhat later, in early 1997, providing POP3 collection as a
convenience for customers not wishing to use DIS or Turnpike or to run
their own full mail server on premises. Presumably such customers were
starting to succumb to the lures of glitzier MUAs such as Outlook
Express...
>> I _think_ they discouraged this, though providing the
>> facility, on the grounds that the recipient had to be online (or be
>> paying for a machine that was) to receive it.
>Even if they did discourage it, I don't think that could have been the
>reason. There would normally be a permanently connected mail exchanger for
>such a recipient.
punts meant that there was no need for TAM customers to run an SMTP
server 24x7.
--
Bob Evans
Cliff Frisby
Apr 10, 2017, 11:21:38 AM4/10/17
to
Bob Evans wrote:
> In article <ocbh0c$r6u$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
> <spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> I vaguely remember, back in the early days of Demon dialup, having the
>>> option to send emails direct, rather than (I think) via Demon's outgoing
>>> mail server;
>
> In contrast to the more controlling policies of many consumer ISPs over
> the years (who would intercept or block their users' outbound SMTP
> connections), the option to deliver emails direct-to-MX rather than via
> Demon's smarthosts (SMTP relays) was always available to Demon TAM
> customers.
>
>>Did Demon actually offer an outgoing relay/smarthost at the outset? If
>>they did, I wasn't aware of it, and can't have been using it, because I
>>didn't do any particular configuring for my .demon.co.uk email -- it just
>>worked, both incoming and outgoing, and I wasn't using any Demon-supplied
>>software.)
>
> Probably your SMTP client did direct-to-MX delivery.
Undoubtedly! It was a Slackware installation, running sendmail by default. I
> In article <ocbh0c$r6u$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
> <spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> I vaguely remember, back in the early days of Demon dialup, having the
>>> option to send emails direct, rather than (I think) via Demon's outgoing
>>> mail server;
>
> In contrast to the more controlling policies of many consumer ISPs over
> the years (who would intercept or block their users' outbound SMTP
> connections), the option to deliver emails direct-to-MX rather than via
> Demon's smarthosts (SMTP relays) was always available to Demon TAM
> customers.
>
>>Did Demon actually offer an outgoing relay/smarthost at the outset? If
>>they did, I wasn't aware of it, and can't have been using it, because I
>>didn't do any particular configuring for my .demon.co.uk email -- it just
>>worked, both incoming and outgoing, and I wasn't using any Demon-supplied
>>software.)
>
> Probably your SMTP client did direct-to-MX delivery.
assume in hindsight that the MUA I was using (Netscape, I think) was
preconfigured (in the distro) to deliver to the local sendmail.
> However the Demon
> smarthosts were available from the very early days (right from the
> beginning AFAICR).
listed on the documentation that Demon sent by post folloing the TAM account
setup. But that, admittedly, doesn't prove it didn't exist.
>
> Some d.s regulars may recall the Demon "DIS" package, a derivative of
> the KA9Q NOS software for DOS, that Demon used to supply pre-Turnpike.
> DIS was pre-configured to send outbound mail via post.demon.co.uk and
> contained an SMTP server to receive inbound mail from the Demon puntmail
> servers.
>
>>Didn't the smarthost come into existence at the same time as POP3/SDPS
>>option?
>
> The original inbound mail delivery method (for TAM customers) was by
> SMTP, typically to the SMTP servers in DIS or Turnpike.
>
> SDPS came somewhat later, in early 1997, providing POP3 collection as a
> convenience for customers not wishing to use DIS or Turnpike or to run
> their own full mail server on premises. Presumably such customers were
> starting to succumb to the lures of glitzier MUAs such as Outlook
> Express...
>
SMTP delivery, but rather POP3, with the novel side effect that their
customers could access their pending email when away from home, using other
people's conputers!
>>> I _think_ they discouraged this, though providing the
>>> facility, on the grounds that the recipient had to be online (or be
>>> paying for a machine that was) to receive it.
>
>>Even if they did discourage it, I don't think that could have been the
>>reason. There would normally be a permanently connected mail exchanger for
>>such a recipient.
>
> No, even with SMTP delivery of inbound mail, the existence of the Demon
> punts meant that there was no need for TAM customers to run an SMTP
> server 24x7.
>
referring to the recipient of outgoing mail, and alluding to some sort of
delivery right into the remote recipient's computer, isn't he.
But otherwise, yes, the punts were the ideal workaround for all those
intermittently connected customer-hosted SMTP servers, and another factor in
why my Slackware setup required zero email configuration w.r.t
any...@myhost.d.c.u.
Bob Evans
Apr 10, 2017, 5:14:25 PM4/10/17
to
In article <ocg7o9$poh$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
<spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> wrote
I believe that the DIS package came pre-configured with the address of
Demon's smarthost. The SMTP function in KA9QNOS could send mail to a
preset smarthost or to any of a user-defined list of mail hosts stored
in its hosts table. I don't think there was any capability for
automatic MX lookup.
[snip]
>>even with SMTP delivery of inbound mail, the existence of the Demon
>> punts meant that there was no need for TAM customers to run an SMTP
>> server 24x7.
>>
>I think we're interpreting the OP's mind differently. J.P.G. is surely
>referring to the recipient of outgoing mail, and alluding to some sort of
>delivery right into the remote recipient's computer, isn't he.
Whether the sender attempts direct-to-MX delivery or delegates that job
to his ISP's mail relay, that is the limit of his responsibility for the
delivery. It is up to the recipient (or his ISP) to provide a working
SMTP server and configure the DNS zone file for the receiving domain
accordingly.
I suspect that J.P.G. may be eliding two or more of the following
issues:
(a) that, unlike Demon, some consumer ISPs prevent their users from
attempting direct-to-MX delivery in an effort to frustrate spam bots;
(b) the requirement for a recipient MX host to be listening when SMTP
delivery is attempted (albeit that this is unlikely to be a problem for
mail addressed to a mailbox within some ISP subdomain); and
(c) that when Demon first introduced their consumer ADSL service, they
announced that automatic SMTP delivery from the punts would not be
provided and hence such broadband customers would instead be required to
collect their mail by POP3.
The stated rationale for (c) was that it was technically too difficult
for Demon to work out when a customer's SMTP server was actually
listening before kicking off delivery from the punts. At the time some
more cynical customers assumed that this was simply a smokescreen for
the consequences of manpower depletion within the engineering team. Or
I suppose it could have been part of a long-term plan to transfer mail
provision to some third party with an Exchange Server based solution.
>But otherwise, yes, the punts were the ideal workaround for all those
>intermittently connected customer-hosted SMTP servers, and another factor in
>why my Slackware setup required zero email configuration w.r.t
>any...@myhost.d.c.u.
Yes the punts were good.
--
Bob Evans
<spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>Bob Evans wrote:
>> However the Demon smarthosts were available from the very early days
>>(right from the beginning AFAICR).
>My only reason for scepticism is that if it did exist, it wasn't AFA*I*CR
>listed on the documentation that Demon sent by post folloing the TAM account
>setup. But that, admittedly, doesn't prove it didn't exist.
Didn't they do a nice little red booklet with all that kind of info?
>> However the Demon smarthosts were available from the very early days
>>(right from the beginning AFAICR).
>My only reason for scepticism is that if it did exist, it wasn't AFA*I*CR
>listed on the documentation that Demon sent by post folloing the TAM account
>setup. But that, admittedly, doesn't prove it didn't exist.
I believe that the DIS package came pre-configured with the address of
Demon's smarthost. The SMTP function in KA9QNOS could send mail to a
preset smarthost or to any of a user-defined list of mail hosts stored
in its hosts table. I don't think there was any capability for
automatic MX lookup.
[snip]
>>even with SMTP delivery of inbound mail, the existence of the Demon
>> punts meant that there was no need for TAM customers to run an SMTP
>> server 24x7.
>>
>I think we're interpreting the OP's mind differently. J.P.G. is surely
>referring to the recipient of outgoing mail, and alluding to some sort of
>delivery right into the remote recipient's computer, isn't he.
to his ISP's mail relay, that is the limit of his responsibility for the
delivery. It is up to the recipient (or his ISP) to provide a working
SMTP server and configure the DNS zone file for the receiving domain
accordingly.
I suspect that J.P.G. may be eliding two or more of the following
issues:
(a) that, unlike Demon, some consumer ISPs prevent their users from
attempting direct-to-MX delivery in an effort to frustrate spam bots;
(b) the requirement for a recipient MX host to be listening when SMTP
delivery is attempted (albeit that this is unlikely to be a problem for
mail addressed to a mailbox within some ISP subdomain); and
(c) that when Demon first introduced their consumer ADSL service, they
announced that automatic SMTP delivery from the punts would not be
provided and hence such broadband customers would instead be required to
collect their mail by POP3.
The stated rationale for (c) was that it was technically too difficult
for Demon to work out when a customer's SMTP server was actually
listening before kicking off delivery from the punts. At the time some
more cynical customers assumed that this was simply a smokescreen for
the consequences of manpower depletion within the engineering team. Or
I suppose it could have been part of a long-term plan to transfer mail
provision to some third party with an Exchange Server based solution.
>But otherwise, yes, the punts were the ideal workaround for all those
>intermittently connected customer-hosted SMTP servers, and another factor in
>why my Slackware setup required zero email configuration w.r.t
>any...@myhost.d.c.u.
--
Bob Evans
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 10, 2017, 6:57:53 PM4/10/17
to
In message <abm+5ZXJV$6YF...@cygnus.rejectifspam.lichtech.co.uk>, Bob
talking decades ago! - but I do remember that Demon did tell us (though
I don't remember whether in paperwork, email, magazine, CD, or some
other means) about both means; IIRR they told us the direct method was
theoretically quicker, but did need some ... I forget what. They _sort
of_ deprecated the direct method - but I think that was more to protect
customers from disappointment about their emails not getting through;
remember in those days Demon were quite encouraging of experimentation.
vague memory of something not being available on broadband, but other
than a faint feeling of disappointment, didn't pay much attention, as I
didn't take broadband from Demon.
Evans <newsab...@deleteifspam.lichtech.co.uk> writes:
>In article <ocg7o9$poh$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
><spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>Bob Evans wrote:
>>> However the Demon smarthosts were available from the very early
>>>days (right from the beginning AFAICR).
>>My only reason for scepticism is that if it did exist, it wasn't AFA*I*CR
>>listed on the documentation that Demon sent by post folloing the TAM account
>>setup. But that, admittedly, doesn't prove it didn't exist.
>
>Didn't they do a nice little red booklet with all that kind of info?
>
>I believe that the DIS package came pre-configured with the address of
>Demon's smarthost. The SMTP function in KA9QNOS could send mail to a
>preset smarthost or to any of a user-defined list of mail hosts stored
>in its hosts table. I don't think there was any capability for
>automatic MX lookup.
>
>[snip]
>
>>>even with SMTP delivery of inbound mail, the existence of the Demon
>>> punts meant that there was no need for TAM customers to run an SMTP
>>> server 24x7.
>>>
>>I think we're interpreting the OP's mind differently. J.P.G. is surely
>>referring to the recipient of outgoing mail, and alluding to some sort of
>>delivery right into the remote recipient's computer, isn't he.
I was talking of mail that I sent. I don't remember the details - we're
>In article <ocg7o9$poh$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
><spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>Bob Evans wrote:
>>> However the Demon smarthosts were available from the very early
>>>days (right from the beginning AFAICR).
>>My only reason for scepticism is that if it did exist, it wasn't AFA*I*CR
>>listed on the documentation that Demon sent by post folloing the TAM account
>>setup. But that, admittedly, doesn't prove it didn't exist.
>
>Didn't they do a nice little red booklet with all that kind of info?
>
>I believe that the DIS package came pre-configured with the address of
>Demon's smarthost. The SMTP function in KA9QNOS could send mail to a
>preset smarthost or to any of a user-defined list of mail hosts stored
>in its hosts table. I don't think there was any capability for
>automatic MX lookup.
>
>[snip]
>
>>>even with SMTP delivery of inbound mail, the existence of the Demon
>>> punts meant that there was no need for TAM customers to run an SMTP
>>> server 24x7.
>>>
>>I think we're interpreting the OP's mind differently. J.P.G. is surely
>>referring to the recipient of outgoing mail, and alluding to some sort of
>>delivery right into the remote recipient's computer, isn't he.
talking decades ago! - but I do remember that Demon did tell us (though
I don't remember whether in paperwork, email, magazine, CD, or some
other means) about both means; IIRR they told us the direct method was
theoretically quicker, but did need some ... I forget what. They _sort
of_ deprecated the direct method - but I think that was more to protect
customers from disappointment about their emails not getting through;
remember in those days Demon were quite encouraging of experimentation.
>
>Whether the sender attempts direct-to-MX delivery or delegates that job
>to his ISP's mail relay, that is the limit of his responsibility for
>the delivery. It is up to the recipient (or his ISP) to provide a
>working SMTP server and configure the DNS zone file for the receiving
>domain accordingly.
>
>I suspect that J.P.G. may be eliding two or more of the following
>issues:
>(a) that, unlike Demon, some consumer ISPs prevent their users from
>attempting direct-to-MX delivery in an effort to frustrate spam bots;
>(b) the requirement for a recipient MX host to be listening when SMTP
>delivery is attempted (albeit that this is unlikely to be a problem for
>mail addressed to a mailbox within some ISP subdomain); and
>(c) that when Demon first introduced their consumer ADSL service, they
>announced that automatic SMTP delivery from the punts would not be
>provided and hence such broadband customers would instead be required
>to collect their mail by POP3.
I was certainly talking about back in the days of dialup. I do have a
>Whether the sender attempts direct-to-MX delivery or delegates that job
>to his ISP's mail relay, that is the limit of his responsibility for
>the delivery. It is up to the recipient (or his ISP) to provide a
>working SMTP server and configure the DNS zone file for the receiving
>domain accordingly.
>
>I suspect that J.P.G. may be eliding two or more of the following
>issues:
>(a) that, unlike Demon, some consumer ISPs prevent their users from
>attempting direct-to-MX delivery in an effort to frustrate spam bots;
>(b) the requirement for a recipient MX host to be listening when SMTP
>delivery is attempted (albeit that this is unlikely to be a problem for
>mail addressed to a mailbox within some ISP subdomain); and
>(c) that when Demon first introduced their consumer ADSL service, they
>announced that automatic SMTP delivery from the punts would not be
>provided and hence such broadband customers would instead be required
>to collect their mail by POP3.
vague memory of something not being available on broadband, but other
than a faint feeling of disappointment, didn't pay much attention, as I
didn't take broadband from Demon.
>
>The stated rationale for (c) was that it was technically too difficult
>for Demon to work out when a customer's SMTP server was actually
>listening before kicking off delivery from the punts. At the time some
>more cynical customers assumed that this was simply a smokescreen for
>the consequences of manpower depletion within the engineering team. Or
>I suppose it could have been part of a long-term plan to transfer mail
>provision to some third party with an Exchange Server based solution.
>
>>But otherwise, yes, the punts were the ideal workaround for all those
>>intermittently connected customer-hosted SMTP servers, and another factor in
>>why my Slackware setup required zero email configuration w.r.t
>>any...@myhost.d.c.u.
>
>Yes the punts were good.
>
--
>The stated rationale for (c) was that it was technically too difficult
>for Demon to work out when a customer's SMTP server was actually
>listening before kicking off delivery from the punts. At the time some
>more cynical customers assumed that this was simply a smokescreen for
>the consequences of manpower depletion within the engineering team. Or
>I suppose it could have been part of a long-term plan to transfer mail
>provision to some third party with an Exchange Server based solution.
>
>>But otherwise, yes, the punts were the ideal workaround for all those
>>intermittently connected customer-hosted SMTP servers, and another factor in
>>why my Slackware setup required zero email configuration w.r.t
>>any...@myhost.d.c.u.
>
>Yes the punts were good.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
David Rance
Apr 11, 2017, 5:00:11 AM4/11/17
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:56:11 J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>In message <abm+5ZXJV$6YF...@cygnus.rejectifspam.lichtech.co.uk>, Bob
>Evans <newsab...@deleteifspam.lichtech.co.uk> writes:
>>(c) that when Demon first introduced their consumer ADSL service, they
>>announced that automatic SMTP delivery from the punts would not be
>>provided and hence such broadband customers would instead be required
>>to collect their mail by POP3.
>
>I was certainly talking about back in the days of dialup. I do have a
>vague memory of something not being available on broadband, but other
>than a faint feeling of disappointment, didn't pay much attention, as I
>didn't take broadband from Demon.
As I remember it, it *was* SMTP delivery that wouldn't be available with
>In message <abm+5ZXJV$6YF...@cygnus.rejectifspam.lichtech.co.uk>, Bob
>Evans <newsab...@deleteifspam.lichtech.co.uk> writes:
>>(c) that when Demon first introduced their consumer ADSL service, they
>>announced that automatic SMTP delivery from the punts would not be
>>provided and hence such broadband customers would instead be required
>>to collect their mail by POP3.
>
>I was certainly talking about back in the days of dialup. I do have a
>vague memory of something not being available on broadband, but other
>than a faint feeling of disappointment, didn't pay much attention, as I
>didn't take broadband from Demon.
broadband.
But even before broadband became available I do remember calling the
Demon help desk about a problem with KA9Q - it may have been to do with
receiving mail. The girl hadn't a clue what I was talking about because
the "helpers" were all trained to help people with Windows problems and
her training was in giving instructions on how we should set up POP3 and
winsock. She hadn't even heard of KA9Q or DOS! I didn't install Windows
until fairly late in the life of Win98 (early '90s) and not long before
I subscribed to broadband.
I can't believe that is now more than twenty-five years ago!
Mark Undrill
Apr 11, 2017, 6:03:29 AM4/11/17
to
On 10/04/2017 22:12, Bob Evans wrote:
> In article <ocg7o9$poh$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
> <spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> Bob Evans wrote:
<snip>
> In article <ocg7o9$poh$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
> <spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> Bob Evans wrote:
> (c) that when Demon first introduced their consumer ADSL service, they
> announced that automatic SMTP delivery from the punts would not be
> provided and hence such broadband customers would instead be required to
> collect their mail by POP3.
>
As I recall, the above only applied to "Home" ADSL packages. "Business"
ADSL packages still had SMTP delivery.
>
> Yes the punts were good.
>
--
Mark
Simon Turner
May 5, 2017, 9:35:02 AM5/5/17
to
[Sorry, rather a long way behind!]
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 22:12:41 +0100, in article
<abm+5ZXJV$6YF...@cygnus.rejectifspam.lichtech.co.uk>
certainly up and running by April 1993 (and there's evidence suggesting
it was there before June 1992; see below).
> Didn't they do a nice little red booklet with all that kind of info?
Perhaps; I remember the paperwork from mid-1993 still being on old
"Demon Systems" headed pale yellow paper, and don't recall any booklet
(red or otherwise), but perhaps that came later (or earlier?)
> I believe that the DIS package came pre-configured with the address of
> Demon's smarthost.
It did: my earliest AUTOEXEC.SMP (provided with DIS211.EXE, dated 11 May
1993 and for NOS version 2.10+), contains the line
smtp gateway 158.152.1.72
(Delivery used the gateway if attempts to deliver to MX failed or timed
out; see below.)
> The SMTP function in KA9QNOS could send mail to a preset smarthost or
> to any of a user-defined list of mail hosts stored in its hosts table.
> I don't think there was any capability for automatic MX lookup.
The classic Phil Karn version of KA9Q did indeed behave like that, in
1991 at least, but Demon's version departed from that behaviour fairly
early on: they had automatic MX delivery working in June 1992.
A brief trip down memory lane:
NETHIST.TXT (Demon's changelog for their modified version of KA9Q) shows
that MX resolving was got working properly by Giles Todd in NOS version
1.9, but sadly the early entries are undated; however matching the
changes described with version control entries in the source it looks as
though 1.9 was 2 June 1992.
(There were frequent new releases of NOS during the early days of Demon:
they were up to version 1.11 by 5 June, and by the end of June they had
got to 1.16; 1.20 came out on 13 Aug 92, 1.29 on 05 Dec 92, 2.01 on 07
Jan 93, and they were up to 2.11 by 19 Apr 93.)
Here are the relevant entries from NETHIST.TXT:
1.6 gt
...
2) The mail router is not intelligent enough. Temporary fix: route all
mail via the smtp gateway if one is defined. To do: fix properly.
and then:
1.9 gt
1) Removed the mail routing kludge introduced in version 1.6. Routing
is now done via the MX records as before.
2) New command "smtp wait [<timeout in seconds>]" to read and set the
SMTP connection timeout counter. The default value is 60 seconds.
3) SMTP connections now operate under the timeout specified in the SMTP
connection timeout counter. If the SMTP client fails to connect to the
SMTP server within the timeout period then the destination server is
assumed to be unreachable directly and the mail is rerouted to go via
the gateway specified by the "smtp gateway" command.
Note that 1.9 says "routing is now done via the MX records as before",
suggesting that an earlier -- presumably pre-1.6 -- version had done MX
lookups but not got it quite right (perhaps not honouring the
preferences?) The first entry in the file is 1.5; who knows what Demon
did in versions 1.0 to 1.4?
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
si...@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 22:12:41 +0100, in article
<abm+5ZXJV$6YF...@cygnus.rejectifspam.lichtech.co.uk>
newsab...@deleteifspam.lichtech.co.uk "Bob Evans" wrote:
> In article <ocg7o9$poh$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
> <spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> Bob Evans wrote:
>>> However the Demon smarthosts were available from the very early days
>>> (right from the beginning AFAICR).
>> My only reason for scepticism is that if it did exist, it wasn't AFA*I*CR
>> listed on the documentation that Demon sent by post folloing the TAM account
>> setup. But that, admittedly, doesn't prove it didn't exist.
What sort of timeframe are we talking about here? The smarthost was
> In article <ocg7o9$poh$1...@dont-email.me>, Cliff Frisby
> <spam...@scarpia-ads1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> Bob Evans wrote:
>>> However the Demon smarthosts were available from the very early days
>>> (right from the beginning AFAICR).
>> My only reason for scepticism is that if it did exist, it wasn't AFA*I*CR
>> listed on the documentation that Demon sent by post folloing the TAM account
>> setup. But that, admittedly, doesn't prove it didn't exist.
certainly up and running by April 1993 (and there's evidence suggesting
it was there before June 1992; see below).
> Didn't they do a nice little red booklet with all that kind of info?
"Demon Systems" headed pale yellow paper, and don't recall any booklet
(red or otherwise), but perhaps that came later (or earlier?)
> I believe that the DIS package came pre-configured with the address of
> Demon's smarthost.
1993 and for NOS version 2.10+), contains the line
smtp gateway 158.152.1.72
(Delivery used the gateway if attempts to deliver to MX failed or timed
out; see below.)
> The SMTP function in KA9QNOS could send mail to a preset smarthost or
> to any of a user-defined list of mail hosts stored in its hosts table.
> I don't think there was any capability for automatic MX lookup.
1991 at least, but Demon's version departed from that behaviour fairly
early on: they had automatic MX delivery working in June 1992.
A brief trip down memory lane:
NETHIST.TXT (Demon's changelog for their modified version of KA9Q) shows
that MX resolving was got working properly by Giles Todd in NOS version
1.9, but sadly the early entries are undated; however matching the
changes described with version control entries in the source it looks as
though 1.9 was 2 June 1992.
(There were frequent new releases of NOS during the early days of Demon:
they were up to version 1.11 by 5 June, and by the end of June they had
got to 1.16; 1.20 came out on 13 Aug 92, 1.29 on 05 Dec 92, 2.01 on 07
Jan 93, and they were up to 2.11 by 19 Apr 93.)
Here are the relevant entries from NETHIST.TXT:
1.6 gt
...
2) The mail router is not intelligent enough. Temporary fix: route all
mail via the smtp gateway if one is defined. To do: fix properly.
and then:
1.9 gt
1) Removed the mail routing kludge introduced in version 1.6. Routing
is now done via the MX records as before.
2) New command "smtp wait [<timeout in seconds>]" to read and set the
SMTP connection timeout counter. The default value is 60 seconds.
3) SMTP connections now operate under the timeout specified in the SMTP
connection timeout counter. If the SMTP client fails to connect to the
SMTP server within the timeout period then the destination server is
assumed to be unreachable directly and the mail is rerouted to go via
the gateway specified by the "smtp gateway" command.
Note that 1.9 says "routing is now done via the MX records as before",
suggesting that an earlier -- presumably pre-1.6 -- version had done MX
lookups but not got it quite right (perhaps not honouring the
preferences?) The first entry in the file is 1.5; who knows what Demon
did in versions 1.0 to 1.4?
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
si...@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
Simon Turner
May 5, 2017, 9:38:14 AM5/5/17
to
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:52:48 +0100, in article
<hrcMmbag...@david.rance.org.uk>
There's a hint in the name. 8-)
Early 2000s perhaps? More than fifteen years ago?
<hrcMmbag...@david.rance.org.uk>
david...@SPAMOFF.invalid "David Rance" wrote:
> But even before broadband became available I do remember calling the
> Demon help desk about a problem with KA9Q - it may have been to do with
> receiving mail. The girl hadn't a clue what I was talking about because
> the "helpers" were all trained to help people with Windows problems and
> her training was in giving instructions on how we should set up POP3 and
> winsock. She hadn't even heard of KA9Q or DOS! I didn't install Windows
> until fairly late in the life of Win98 (early '90s) and not long before
> I subscribed to broadband.
>
> I can't believe that is now more than twenty-five years ago!
You're right not to believe it: Win98 wasn't around in the "early 90's".
> But even before broadband became available I do remember calling the
> Demon help desk about a problem with KA9Q - it may have been to do with
> receiving mail. The girl hadn't a clue what I was talking about because
> the "helpers" were all trained to help people with Windows problems and
> her training was in giving instructions on how we should set up POP3 and
> winsock. She hadn't even heard of KA9Q or DOS! I didn't install Windows
> until fairly late in the life of Win98 (early '90s) and not long before
> I subscribed to broadband.
>
> I can't believe that is now more than twenty-five years ago!
There's a hint in the name. 8-)
Early 2000s perhaps? More than fifteen years ago?
David Rance
May 5, 2017, 10:00:04 AM5/5/17
to
On Fri, 5 May 2017 14:37:49 Simon Turner wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:52:48 +0100, in article
> <hrcMmbag...@david.rance.org.uk>
> david...@SPAMOFF.invalid "David Rance" wrote:
>
>> But even before broadband became available I do remember calling the
>> Demon help desk about a problem with KA9Q - it may have been to do with
>> receiving mail. The girl hadn't a clue what I was talking about because
>> the "helpers" were all trained to help people with Windows problems and
>> her training was in giving instructions on how we should set up POP3 and
>> winsock. She hadn't even heard of KA9Q or DOS! I didn't install Windows
>> until fairly late in the life of Win98 (early '90s) and not long before
>> I subscribed to broadband.
>>
>> I can't believe that is now more than twenty-five years ago!
>
>You're right not to believe it: Win98 wasn't around in the "early 90's".
>There's a hint in the name. 8-)
>
>Early 2000s perhaps? More than fifteen years ago?
Yes, sorry, I meant fifteen years ago! My mental arithmetic has gone a
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:52:48 +0100, in article
> <hrcMmbag...@david.rance.org.uk>
> david...@SPAMOFF.invalid "David Rance" wrote:
>
>> But even before broadband became available I do remember calling the
>> Demon help desk about a problem with KA9Q - it may have been to do with
>> receiving mail. The girl hadn't a clue what I was talking about because
>> the "helpers" were all trained to help people with Windows problems and
>> her training was in giving instructions on how we should set up POP3 and
>> winsock. She hadn't even heard of KA9Q or DOS! I didn't install Windows
>> until fairly late in the life of Win98 (early '90s) and not long before
>> I subscribed to broadband.
>>
>> I can't believe that is now more than twenty-five years ago!
>
>You're right not to believe it: Win98 wasn't around in the "early 90's".
>There's a hint in the name. 8-)
>
>Early 2000s perhaps? More than fifteen years ago?
little haywire.
0 new messages