Demon Demise in Progress

[jg....@gmail.com]

Today may be the day my demon e-mail finally dies.

Currently mail to anything@<domain>.demon.co.uk simply disappears into the ether, without any non-delivery notifications.

However mail to anythingvalid@<domain>demononcasca.onmicrosoft.com is still being delivered.

[jg....@gmail.com]

I should qualify <domain> as being MY demon domain, just in case.....

[jg....@gmail.com]

On Monday, 15 June 2020 23:17:21 UTC+1, jg....@gmail.com wrote:
>

> However mail to anythingvalid@<domain>demononcasca.onmicrosoft.com is still being delivered.

Posted too soon - the only thing that gets through now is when "anythingvalid" = part of my namesco username.

[Andrew Gabriel]

cucumber.demon.co.uk switched off today after after about 27 years
(working this morning, MX not routable this evening).

--
Andrew Gabriel

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Quietly, without any fuss, one by one the demon subdomains were going
out.

(With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The average age at which a woman has her first child has passed 30.
Jason Cowley, RT 2016/6/11-17

[Alan Woodford]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 18:17:50 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 17:25:08, Andrew Gabriel
><and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 15/06/2020 23:17, jg....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Today may be the day my demon e-mail finally dies.
>>> Currently mail to anything@<domain>.demon.co.uk simply disappears
>>>into the ether, without any non-delivery notifications.
>>> However mail to anythingvalid@<domain>demononcasca.onmicrosoft.com
>>>is still being delivered.
>>>
>>
>>cucumber.demon.co.uk switched off today after after about 27 years
>>(working this morning, MX not routable this evening).
>>
>Quietly, without any fuss, one by one the demon subdomains were going
>out.
>
>(With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke.)

Laughs out loud - I've just been setting up SWMBO's PC to access the World
Science Fiction Convention in New Zealand!

But it really does seem like the end of an era...

Alan Woodford

The Greying Lensman

[Peter Hill]

skyshack.demon.co.uk was put to the sword at about 11pm.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 23:34:02, Peter Hill <sky...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 28/07/2020 20:10, Alan Woodford wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 18:17:50 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6...@255soft.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 17:25:08, Andrew Gabriel
>>> <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 15/06/2020 23:17, jg....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Today may be the day my demon e-mail finally dies.
>>>>> Currently mail to anything@<domain>.demon.co.uk simply disappears
>>>>> into the ether, without any non-delivery notifications.
>>>>> However mail to anythingvalid@<domain>demononcasca.onmicrosoft.com
>>>>> is still being delivered.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cucumber.demon.co.uk switched off today after after about 27 years
>>>> (working this morning, MX not routable this evening).
>>>>
>>> Quietly, without any fuss, one by one the demon subdomains were going
>>> out.
>>>
>>> (With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke.)
>> Laughs out loud - I've just been setting up SWMBO's PC to access the
>>World
>> Science Fiction Convention in New Zealand!

I'm _so_ glad someone got the reference!

>> But it really does seem like the end of an era...

Yes, I agree. I feel quite tearful.

>> Alan Woodford
>> The Greying Lensman
>>
>skyshack.demon.co.uk was put to the sword at about 11pm.

The ones that did exist but ceased some while ago, like my
soft255.demon.co.uk, still (as of 3:30am BST on 2020-7-29) bring up the
namesco "Don’t let this space go to waste" page, which is surely not
correct.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I was never drawn to sport, to which I attribute my long life.
- Barry Humphries, RT 2016/1/9-15

[Martin Brown]

Mine vanished overnight. It is a bit weird how they have done it though.
I had expected the A & AAAA records to be deleted but instead they are
altered so that they now point to different nameserver and mailhosts.

Before
ns0.demon.co.uk
hostmaster.demon.net

After
a.root-servers.net
nstltd.verisign-grs.com

The records are still there on Google DNS 8.8.8.8 but are no longer
being served by the back end handlers. Maybe someone with a better
knowledge of the mail and web servers can explain what they have done.
(and why)

FWIW Google DNS 8.8.8.8 now says can't find hostmaster.demon.co.uk so I
pity anyone relying on using Demon email until September.

Either way the Demon candle has been snuffed out. End of an era :(

They haven't been very thorough - some zombie websites still alive!

Checking a few prehistoric subdomains of my astro friends I found the
following. He was one of the last remaining Demon dialup customers. His
website is *still* there. He has long since moved ISP for *everything*.

http://www.asequoow.demon.co.uk/

Also

http://www.chocky.demon.co.uk/

It seems the chances of your website surviving this exorcism by Voodoo
practitioners is greatly increased by having asked them to delete it!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Tim Lamb]

In message <76zrPfTc$NIf...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@255soft.uk> writes

Strangely they are still offering to renew mine (due 01/09/2020)!
I decided to cancel the auto renewal as I have moved everything possible
to an alternative address. The downside seems to be the loss of access
to historic mails. However, anything important/legal will have been
backed up by printed copy.
26 years I think and a bit sad...
--
Tim Lamb

[Andrew Gabriel]

My website subscription expired a month earlier when I (deliberately)
didn't pay the renewal fee. It went the day after the expiry.

What went yesterday was the email routing, which they warned me it would:

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

andrew....@cucumber.demon.co.uk
all relevant MX records point to non-existent hosts

I wonder if eternal september will stop me using it at some point?
--
Andrew Gabriel

[Alan Woodford]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 09:06:00 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Either way the Demon candle has been snuffed out. End of an era :(
>
>They haven't been very thorough - some zombie websites still alive!
>
>Checking a few prehistoric subdomains of my astro friends I found the
>following. He was one of the last remaining Demon dialup customers. His
>website is *still* there. He has long since moved ISP for *everything*.
>
>http://www.asequoow.demon.co.uk/
>
>Also
>
>http://www.chocky.demon.co.uk/
>
>It seems the chances of your website surviving this exorcism by Voodoo
>practitioners is greatly increased by having asked them to delete it!

You aren't -really- surprised, after all these years? :-)

My olde website at http://www.bortas.demon.co.uk/ seems to be still there.

The link from it hasn't worked for ages (I took the image down when the
Namesco move happened, but couldn't take the link out....), but the text has
been there for over 20 years :-O

[Martin Brown]

On 29/07/2020 03:33, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 23:34:02, Peter Hill <sky...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 28/07/2020 20:10, Alan Woodford wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 18:17:50 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>> <G6...@255soft.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> (With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke.)
>>>  Laughs out loud - I've just been setting up SWMBO's PC to access the
>>> World
>>> Science Fiction Convention in New Zealand!
>
> I'm _so_ glad someone got the reference!
>
>>>  But it really does seem like the end of an era...
>
> Yes, I agree. I feel quite tearful.
>
>>>  Alan Woodford
>>>  The Greying Lensman
>>>
>> skyshack.demon.co.uk was put to the sword at about 11pm.

But its zombie website still lives on: http://www.skyshack.demon.co.uk

Evidently they should have used a better silver bullet or wooden stake.
They should have known that swords do not work on vampires or zombies!

> The ones that did exist but ceased some while ago, like my
> soft255.demon.co.uk, still (as of 3:30am BST on 2020-7-29) bring up the
> namesco "Don’t let this space go to waste" page, which is surely not
> correct.

I can't say that I am surprised. One thing is certain I will *NEVER*
recommend that anyone uses a Vodafone supplied service ever again.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 09:48:38, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 29/07/2020 03:33, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]

>> The ones that did exist but ceased some while ago, like my
>>soft255.demon.co.uk, still (as of 3:30am BST on 2020-7-29) bring up
>>the namesco "Don’t let this space go to waste" page, which is
>>surely not correct.
>
>I can't say that I am surprised. One thing is certain I will *NEVER*
>recommend that anyone uses a Vodafone supplied service ever again.
>

Which is to blame here, Vodafone or Names? Sure, Vodafone are cads for
killing it in the first place, _and_ they've been a lot less than
competent in their handling since they decided; however, I think most of
the _running_ of Demon-related matters - at least, the subdomains - has
been with Namesco for a few years now. And on the other hand, _they_
have been very patient with my (not computer savvy and still using
Turnpike) friend.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

> > Won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you. -Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 09:18:25, Andrew Gabriel
<and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:


(Oops - unless you're doing it deliberately for harvestbots, there's a
setting in Thunderbird you need to tweak!)


[]

>What went yesterday was the email routing, which they warned me it would:
>
>A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
>recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
>
> andrew....@cucumber.demon.co.uk
> all relevant MX records point to non-existent hosts
>
>I wonder if eternal september will stop me using it at some point?

Is this what you received, having sent an email from another address to
your old one? If so, it's useful to know: it's the first indication that
bounce messages will appear - there had (AFAIK) been no indication one
way or the other, and I'd _assumed_ that emails to DCU addresses would
just disappear into a black hole.

Or is the above bounce message specific to the outgoing email
server/service you use, and other people will get different (or no)
messages?

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Chris S]

Inscrutable logic but you may well be correct. As of a few minutes ago
http://www.loncps.demon.co.uk/ is still returning the entry page I
last uploaded on 27th April 2012. The links on that page are still
functional as well. Soon after Namesco became involved I asked them
(phone call) to delete the site.

Chris S
--
Demon Customer 1993 - 2015; Gradwell Customer 2002 - 2016; now with Zen for connectivity and Tsohost
for web/email hosting (last Gradwell hosted domains migrated October 2016).

[Andrew Gabriel]

On 29/07/2020 14:26, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 09:18:25, Andrew Gabriel
> <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> (Oops - unless you're doing it deliberately for harvestbots, there's a
> setting in Thunderbird you need to tweak!)
>
>
> []
>> What went yesterday was the email routing, which they warned me it would:
>>
>> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
>> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
>>
>>  andrew....@cucumber.demon.co.uk
>>    all relevant MX records point to non-existent hosts
>>
>> I wonder if eternal september will stop me using it at some point?
>
> Is this what you received, having sent an email from another address to
> your old one? If so, it's useful to know: it's the first indication that
> bounce messages will appear - there had (AFAIK) been no indication one
> way or the other, and I'd _assumed_ that emails to DCU addresses would
> just disappear into a black hole.
>
> Or is the above bounce message specific to the outgoing email
> server/service you use, and other people will get different (or no)
> messages?

This is a bounce I received sending to my demon email from elsewhere.
I also worried they wouldn't bounce messages, but it seems they are.

--
Andrew Gabriel

[Andrew Gabriel]

On 29/07/2020 14:20, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 09:48:38, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 29/07/2020 03:33, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> The ones that did exist but ceased some while ago, like my
>>> soft255.demon.co.uk, still (as of 3:30am BST on 2020-7-29) bring up
>>> the  namesco "Don’t let this space go to waste" page, which is surely
>>> not  correct.
>>
>> I can't say that I am surprised. One thing is certain I will *NEVER*
>> recommend that anyone uses a Vodafone supplied service ever again.
>>
> Which is to blame here, Vodafone or Names? Sure, Vodafone are cads for
> killing it in the first place, _and_ they've been a lot less than
> competent in their handling since they decided; however, I think most of
> the _running_ of Demon-related matters - at least, the subdomains - has
> been with Namesco for a few years now. And on the other hand, _they_
> have been very patient with my (not computer savvy and still using
> Turnpike) friend.

Namesco tried to buy the demon.co.uk domain name from Vodafone a number
of times, but Vodafone wouldn't sell it, and they will no longer lease
it to Namesco either, which is what has brought the service to an end.

--
Andrew

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 15:16:35, Andrew Gabriel
<and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 29/07/2020 14:20, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 09:48:38, Martin Brown
>><'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[]

>>> I can't say that I am surprised. One thing is certain I will *NEVER*
>>>recommend that anyone uses a Vodafone supplied service ever again.
>>>
>> Which is to blame here, Vodafone or Names? Sure, Vodafone are cads
>>for killing it in the first place, _and_ they've been a lot less than
>>competent in their handling since they decided; however, I think most
>>of the _running_ of Demon-related matters - at least, the subdomains
>>- has been with Namesco for a few years now. And on the other hand,
>>_they_ have been very patient with my (not computer savvy and still
>>using Turnpike) friend.
>
>Namesco tried to buy the demon.co.uk domain name from Vodafone a number
>of times, but Vodafone wouldn't sell it, and they will no longer lease
>it to Namesco either, which is what has brought the service to an end.
>

As I said, Vodafone are cads for killing it in the first place. However,
the current situation of old DCU sites being down, or
up-but-showing-the-namesco-ad-page, or completely up (apparently, those
are mostly the ones people asked to be taken down around the time of the
transfer!), is surely down to namesco.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Of course, this show - like every other cop show on earth - massively
overstates the prevalence of violent crime: last year, in the whole of the UK,
police fired their weapons just three times. And there were precisely zero
fatalities. - Vincent Graff in RT, 2014/11/8-14

[Martin Brown]

On 29/07/2020 14:20, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 09:48:38, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 29/07/2020 03:33, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> The ones that did exist but ceased some while ago, like my
>>> soft255.demon.co.uk, still (as of 3:30am BST on 2020-7-29) bring up
>>> the  namesco "Don’t let this space go to waste" page, which is surely
>>> not  correct.
>>
>> I can't say that I am surprised. One thing is certain I will *NEVER*
>> recommend that anyone uses a Vodafone supplied service ever again.
>>
> Which is to blame here, Vodafone or Names? Sure, Vodafone are cads for
> killing it in the first place, _and_ they've been a lot less than
> competent in their handling since they decided; however, I think most of

Vodafone are entirely to blame for killing the subdomains. They have
total control of *.dcu and demon.* - that is the root of the problem.

Namesco are blameless and have bent over backwards to make the
transition to another domain with an exact mirror of your previous Demon
email aliases replicated on it. They even provided an option to have a
default ISP related domain for anyone who wishes to be in the same bind
should Namesco suffer a hostile takeover at some later date.

Demonites that opted for this now have email addresses of the form

thei...@nezumi.ndonet.com

> the _running_ of Demon-related matters - at least, the subdomains - has
> been with Namesco for a few years now. And on the other hand, _they_
> have been very patient with my (not computer savvy and still using
> Turnpike) friend.

Namesco were handed a poison chalice with the Demon legacy accounts.
Actually Vodafone threw it unhelpfully over a very high wall.

I found Namesco tech support to be very good on the couple of occasions
I had to deal with them. I was unusual in that I was just about the only
ex-Demon customer who wasn't shouting at them immediately after the
first grand defenestration. Business users with active websites were
particularly vexed by minor differences in the .htaccess rules.

Vodafone retained control of *.demon.co.uk and demon.* MX records so
that Namesco had to beg them to make changes for Demon customers. It was
altogether unsatisfactory. Vodafone could have transferred the domains
or their administration to Namesco and it would all have worked fine.

It will be interesting to see if they actually do anything with the
freed up IP range(s) or whether this was gratuitous house cleaning.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Andrew Gabriel]

On 29/07/2020 15:25, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 15:16:35, Andrew Gabriel
> <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 29/07/2020 14:20, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 09:48:38, Martin Brown
>>> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> []
>>>> I can't say that I am surprised. One thing is certain I will *NEVER*
>>>> recommend that anyone uses a Vodafone supplied service ever again.
>>>>
>>> Which is to blame here, Vodafone or Names? Sure, Vodafone are cads
>>> for  killing it in the first place, _and_ they've been a lot less
>>> than competent in their handling since they decided; however, I think
>>> most of  the _running_ of Demon-related matters - at least, the
>>> subdomains - has  been with Namesco for a few years now. And on the
>>> other hand, _they_  have been very patient with my (not computer
>>> savvy and still using  Turnpike) friend.
>>
>> Namesco tried to buy the demon.co.uk domain name from Vodafone a
>> number of times, but Vodafone wouldn't sell it, and they will no
>> longer lease it to Namesco either, which is what has brought the
>> service to an end.
>>
> As I said, Vodafone are cads for killing it in the first place. However,
> the current situation of old DCU sites being down, or
> up-but-showing-the-namesco-ad-page, or completely up (apparently, those
> are mostly the ones people asked to be taken down around the time of the
> transfer!), is surely down to namesco.

I have to say, Namesco have been very helpful throughout about resolving
the email issues, and their support has been superb on the very few
occasions I used it. I would have been happy to keep my email there, if
they could have acquired the domain name and kept it going, which they
did try to do.

--
Andrew Gabriel

[Simon Lamont]

On 2020-07-29 03:33, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 23:34:02, Peter Hill <sky...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 28/07/2020 20:10, Alan Woodford wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 18:17:50 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>> <G6...@255soft.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 17:25:08, Andrew Gabriel
>>>> <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 15/06/2020 23:17, jg....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Today may be the day my demon e-mail finally dies.
>>>>>>   Currently mail to anything@<domain>.demon.co.uk simply disappears
>>>>>> into the ether, without any non-delivery notifications.
>>>>>>   However mail to anythingvalid@<domain>demononcasca.onmicrosoft.com
>>>>>> is still being delivered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> cucumber.demon.co.uk switched off today after after about 27 years
>>>>> (working this morning, MX not routable this evening).
>>>>>
>>>> Quietly, without any fuss, one by one the demon subdomains were going
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>> (With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke.)

Nicely put. :)

>>>  Laughs out loud - I've just been setting up SWMBO's PC to access the
>>> World
>>> Science Fiction Convention in New Zealand!
>
> I'm _so_ glad someone got the reference!
>
>>>  But it really does seem like the end of an era...
>
> Yes, I agree. I feel quite tearful.
>
>>>  Alan Woodford
>>>  The Greying Lensman
>>>
>> skyshack.demon.co.uk was put to the sword at about 11pm.
>
> The ones that did exist but ceased some while ago, like my
> soft255.demon.co.uk, still (as of 3:30am BST on 2020-7-29) bring up the
> namesco "Don’t let this space go to waste" page, which is surely not
> correct.

I'm still getting that page (as of 18:56 29/7/2019) for
gizmo1.demon.co.uk despite having jumped ship to BT and abandoned it in
2017. Ironically my current domain registration/hosting has been with
names.co.uk since before then...

[Peter Hill]

On 29/07/2020 09:06, Martin Brown wrote:

I left Demon ASDL a few months ago. Vodafone's letter claimed the server
hardware was obsolete that they were technically unable (aka
incompetent) to migrate the service to new hardware. The incompetence of
Vodafone extended to them being unable to send mail to
postm...@skyshack.demon.co.uk

Namesco also were flummoxed as I wasn't using the licence on the default
ad...@skyshackdemononcasca.onmicrosoft.com
but had set the 1 licence to
peter....@skyshack.demon.co.uk

I can no longer send or receive mail but my webpage is still there.
http://www.skyshack.demon.co.uk/

I have done nothing about this webpage since it was moved to namesco and
held to ransom.

I can still login to the office365 admin, all alias and groups are still
present. I can see no way to terminate this online. They outsourced
office365 to Inty and Billing pages have links to Inty but I don't have
an account with Inty.

If I open the outlook app from the office page there is no mail, all
that's left is a saved contact list.

[Peter Hill]

Voda/Namesco/Inty/Demon whatever aren't sending bounce messages, nothing
so polite. It's your mail server saying it can't deliver due to missing
MX record.

Trying to post to usenet newsgroup in TB with the server still set to
smtp.office365.com gets a message that it won't accept messages for
newsgroups.

[Peter Hill]

On 29/07/2020 15:31, Martin Brown wrote:
>
> Namesco were handed a poison chalice with the Demon legacy accounts.
> Actually Vodafone threw it unhelpfully over a very high wall.
>

I totally agree.

Vodafone basically bundled up all the webspace and flung it at Namesco
with absolutely no details of owners. Namesco were left having to ask
the owners to come forward and claim their sites. Web hosting ceased to
be free. Some people claimed the site and paid for it. Others claimed
and asked for deletion but the webpages remained. They can't delete a
webpage on an account that doesn't exist. Me I did nothing. Namesco were
stuck hosting 1000's of sites, possibly using bandwidth that costs, with
no owner and no payment! Must have made the deal into a big loser when
they didn't have x1000 webhosting contracts that the number of demon
user sites and gigabytes of webspace suggested they would have but just
a few 100's that claimed and paid. Then they outsourced the mail to Inty
on Office365 so Namesco's share of the take will have been cut and
Microsoft won.

The only real lapse of Namesco's part was failing to associate the web
pages hostname with the mail hostname.d.c.u that people did pay for. No
doubt webhosting and e-mail service was 2 separate departments.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 15:50:30, Andrew Gabriel

<and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 29/07/2020 15:25, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 15:16:35, Andrew Gabriel
>><and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 29/07/2020 14:20, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]

>>>> Which is to blame here, Vodafone or Names? Sure, Vodafone are cads
>>>>for  killing it in the first place, _and_ they've been a lot less
>>>>than competent in their handling since they decided; however, I
>>>>think most of  the _running_ of Demon-related matters - at least,
>>>>the subdomains - has  been with Namesco for a few years now. And on
>>>>the other hand, _they_  have been very patient with my (not
>>>>computer savvy and still using  Turnpike) friend.
>>>
>>> Namesco tried to buy the demon.co.uk domain name from Vodafone a
>>>number of times, but Vodafone wouldn't sell it, and they will no
>>>longer lease it to Namesco either, which is what has brought the
>>>service to an end.
>>>
>> As I said, Vodafone are cads for killing it in the first place.
>>However, the current situation of old DCU sites being down, or
>>up-but-showing-the-namesco-ad-page, or completely up (apparently,
>>those are mostly the ones people asked to be taken down around the
>>time of the transfer!), is surely down to namesco.
>
>I have to say, Namesco have been very helpful throughout about
>resolving the email issues, and their support has been superb on the
>very few occasions I used it. I would have been happy to keep my email
>there, if they could have acquired the domain name and kept it going,
>which they did try to do.
>

Vodafone decided to kill it initially - or at least that they didn't
want to adminster it.

They handed (sold, paid?) it (administration of both email and websites)
to Namesco. Initially, IMO, Namesco were reasonable - not great, but at
least average - in handling both email and webspace.

Then, after a year or two, they made the switch to a more complex
system, involving Office365. That's the point at which I jumped ship. I
_think_ that might have been when Into got involved (for email).

Now Voda have decided they want to turn it off altogether (and won't
sell it to Names). But Namesco have had to administer it.

My impression has been that Names have been quite good, this time, at
the email transfer handling. But - whether it's to be blamed on what
Voda handed them a few years ago - their handling of the websites has
been less good. Especially ones whose users asked for them to be
terminated at the initial handover (whose sites mostly seem to be still
up!), or those who terminated subsequently (whose sites now show the
Namesco advertising page). What has/is happening to those who had been
actively using their sites right up to now, I don't know.


My spelling checker wants to change "handover" to "hangover". Does it
know something we don't (-:!

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

`Ergonomic' =/= `dext-handed'

[John]

In message <rfral9$8dm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes

<snip>

>
>Mine vanished overnight. It is a bit weird how they have done it
>though. I had expected the A & AAAA records to be deleted but instead
>they are altered so that they now point to different nameserver and
>mailhosts.
>
>Before
>ns0.demon.co.uk
>hostmaster.demon.net
>
>After
>a.root-servers.net
>nstltd.verisign-grs.com
>
>The records are still there on Google DNS 8.8.8.8 but are no longer
>being served by the back end handlers. Maybe someone with a better
>knowledge of the mail and web servers can explain what they have done.
>(and why)
>
>FWIW Google DNS 8.8.8.8 now says can't find hostmaster.demon.co.uk so I
>pity anyone relying on using Demon email until September.

And yet mine lives on. Just tested it and mail is still working to my
d.c.u address.

Maybe it's because I questioned the end date with Namesco a while back
and they confirmed 1st Sept to me.



--
John

[Martin Brown]

On 30/07/2020 13:14, John wrote:
> In message <rfral9$8dm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Mine vanished overnight. It is a bit weird how they have done it
>> though. I had expected the A & AAAA records to be deleted but instead
>> they are altered so that they now point to different nameserver and
>> mailhosts.
>>
>> Before
>> ns0.demon.co.uk
>> hostmaster.demon.net
>>
>> After
>> a.root-servers.net
>> nstltd.verisign-grs.com
>>
>> The records are still there on Google DNS 8.8.8.8 but are no longer
>> being served by the back end handlers. Maybe someone with a better
>> knowledge of the mail and web servers can explain what they have done.
>> (and why)
>>
>> FWIW Google DNS 8.8.8.8 now says can't find hostmaster.demon.co.uk so
>> I pity anyone relying on using Demon email until September.
>
> And yet mine lives on.  Just tested it and mail is still working to my
> d.c.u address.

Boggle! What do your MX records look like now?

Or put another way what is your subdomain name?

>
> Maybe it's because I questioned the end date with Namesco a while back
> and they confirmed 1st Sept to me.


--

Regards,
Martin Brown

[Andrew Gabriel]

On 30/07/2020 13:14, John wrote:

> And yet mine lives on.  Just tested it and mail is still working to my
> d.c.u address.
>
> Maybe it's because I questioned the end date with Namesco a while back
> and they confirmed 1st Sept to me.

Ah, mine was specifically 28th, so looks like they're doing them in batches.

--
Andrew

[Rick Hewett]

On Wed 29 Jul Martin Brown wrote:
> They haven't been very thorough - some zombie websites still alive!
>
> Checking a few prehistoric subdomains of my astro friends I found the
> following. He was one of the last remaining Demon dialup customers. His
> website is *still* there. He has long since moved ISP for *everything*.
>
> http://www.asequoow.demon.co.uk/
>
> Also
>
> http://www.chocky.demon.co.uk/
>
> It seems the chances of your website surviving this exorcism by Voodoo
> practitioners is greatly increased by having asked them to delete it!

I live in hope that the zombie version of mine will vanish one of these
days, but at the moment (at least as far as my DNS is concerned) I'm
still seeing this:

$ host www.chocky.demon.co.uk
www.chocky.demon.co.uk is an alias for service.homepages.demon.net.
service.homepages.demon.net has address 85.233.160.129

...and, of course, the zombie site itself. Out of curiosity, I also
tried the old base domain, and discovered:

$ host chocky.demon.co.uk
chocky.demon.co.uk mail is handled by 5 mx6.demon.co.uk.
chocky.demon.co.uk mail is handled by 5 mx5.demon.co.uk.

$ host mx6.demon.co.uk
mx6.demon.co.uk has address 91.221.169.152
$ host mx5.demon.co.uk
mx5.demon.co.uk has address 91.221.168.152

I havn't bothered trying to email any of my old .dcu addresses as I've
not been able to get email from there for quite a few years now. If
email's still being accepted the box must be pretty full...

--
..Rick Hewett http://www.hewett.org/

[Tim Lamb]

In message <rfv1kh$hr9$1...@dont-email.me>, Andrew Gabriel
<and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> writes

Strangely they were offering to renew mine for a year on the 23rd. I had
unticked the renew box in the control panel.
A test yesterday was undeliverable so probably 28th. as well. I have the
posts since 2016 stored elsewhere so wasn't hugely attracted to their
offer to retain access.
Sad!
>

--
Tim Lamb

[John]

In message <rfuni2$1kg6$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown

<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>On 30/07/2020 13:14, John wrote:
>> In message <rfral9$8dm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown
>><'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Mine vanished overnight. It is a bit weird how they have done it
>>>though. I had expected the A & AAAA records to be deleted but instead
>>>they are altered so that they now point to different nameserver and
>>>mailhosts.
>>>
>>> Before
>>> ns0.demon.co.uk
>>> hostmaster.demon.net
>>>
>>> After
>>> a.root-servers.net
>>> nstltd.verisign-grs.com
>>>
>>> The records are still there on Google DNS 8.8.8.8 but are no longer
>>>being served by the back end handlers. Maybe someone with a better
>>>knowledge of the mail and web servers can explain what they have done.
>>> (and why)
>>>
>>> FWIW Google DNS 8.8.8.8 now says can't find hostmaster.demon.co.uk
>>>so I pity anyone relying on using Demon email until September.
>> And yet mine lives on.  Just tested it and mail is still working to
>>my d.c.u address.
>
>Boggle! What do your MX records look like now?

a:xxxx-demon-co-uk.mail.protection.outlook.com

ip address xx.xx.xx.xx.

TTL 10 secs

Status OK

No DMARC record found

DMARC policy not enabled


DNS record found

>
>Or put another way what is your subdomain name?
>> Maybe it's because I questioned the end date with Namesco a while
>>back and they confirmed 1st Sept to me.
>
>

--

John

[Retrocosm]

On Monday, 15 June 2020 23:17:21 UTC+1, jg....@gmail.com wrote:
> Today may be the day my demon e-mail finally dies.
>
> Currently mail to anything@<domain>.demon.co.uk simply disappears into the ether, without any non-delivery notifications.
>
> However mail to anythingvalid@<domain>demononcasca.onmicrosoft.com is still being delivered.

Quite sad really, I've clung on to my domain since 1992. Someone was actually able to get hold of me recently due to my Demon e-mail address still being in a file I upoaded on AmiNet.

Not anymore, www.incanus.demon.co.uk is now dead, I did put in a permanent redirect before it died but is still a sad day. No longer can I see, don't argue with me, I've got an e-mail address that's older than you.

[Martin Brown]

On 31/07/2020 15:08, Retrocosm wrote:
> On Monday, 15 June 2020 23:17:21 UTC+1, jg....@gmail.com wrote:
>> Today may be the day my demon e-mail finally dies.
>>
>> Currently mail to anything@<domain>.demon.co.uk simply disappears
>> into the ether, without any non-delivery notifications.
>>
>> However mail to anythingvalid@<domain>demononcasca.onmicrosoft.com
>> is still being delivered.

That is presumably how Namesco implemented mapping the join between old
Demon stuff and the subcontracting email to Mickeysoft cascade/365.

>
> Quite sad really, I've clung on to my domain since 1992. Someone was
> actually able to get hold of me recently due to my Demon e-mail
> address still being in a file I upoaded on AmiNet.
>
> Not anymore, www.incanus.demon.co.uk is now dead, I did put in a
> permanent redirect before it died but is still a sad day. No longer
> can I see, don't argue with me, I've got an e-mail address that's
> older than you.

Strange thing is that it seems to depend now on how you access things.
My tame Unix guru could showed me convincingly that Demon subdomains no
longer exist this afternoon and so I assumed I was using local cache.

Incanus.demon.co.uk still resolves to 158.152.35.18 for me here on Win7
(even when I explicitly set the DNS server to Google on 8.8.8.8)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 20:32:01, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[]

>Strange thing is that it seems to depend now on how you access things.
>My tame Unix guru could showed me convincingly that Demon subdomains no
>longer exist this afternoon and so I assumed I was using local cache.
>
>Incanus.demon.co.uk still resolves to 158.152.35.18 for me here on Win7
>(even when I explicitly set the DNS server to Google on 8.8.8.8)
>

Using Turnpike's ping, www.soft255.demon.co.uk resolves to
85.233.160.129, and pings in about 26 ms. Without the www., it still
resolves to 158.152.73.14, which is what it was, but pings don't
respond. Both are no different to how they've been for a while; I left
Demon and Namesco some while ago (when the change to Office365 or
whatever it was happened).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

An act like Morecambe and Wise happens once in a lifetime. Why did it have to
happen in mine? - Bernie Winters quoted by Barry Cryer, RT 2013/11/30-12/6

[Richard_CC]

On 31/07/2020 15:08, Retrocosm wrote:

Well, 3rd August and my demon website still seems to be there, even
though I spent ages trying to get it deleted both before and after
"Namesco day".


I don't really know enough to be sure that mine is still really there or
if I'm seeing a cached or ghost version. If anyone wants to have a look
- www.cowling1.demon.co.uk - I would welcome feedback.

As soon as we heard about the transfer, within hours, I edited the site
to leave just a front page, but Demon had already sent it over to
Namesco. The old unredacted and wildly out of date one reappeared at
switchover and remained, but I just ran out of energy on endless phone
calls.

[Martin Brown]

It gets weirder - my Demon nezumi website which vanished last week has
reappeared today and magically gone back to service.homepages.demon.net.

nezumi's MX records have been trashed and the fixed IP address is gone.

Has this happened to anyone else's website or was mine singled out for
spontaneous resurrection?

> I havn't bothered trying to email any of my old .dcu addresses as I've
> not been able to get email from there for quite a few years now. If
> email's still being accepted the box must be pretty full...

Hi Rick,

Hope you are keeping well in this crazy new world!

Were you at the virtual BAA talk last week on Betelgeuse (probably not
going supernova?).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

On 03/08/2020 16:41, Richard_CC wrote:
> On 31/07/2020 15:08, Retrocosm wrote:
>> On Monday, 15 June 2020 23:17:21 UTC+1, jg....@gmail.com  wrote:
>>> Today may be the day my demon e-mail finally dies.
>>>
>>> Currently mail to anything@<domain>.demon.co.uk simply disappears
>>> into the ether, without any non-delivery notifications.
>>>
>>> However mail to anythingvalid@<domain>demononcasca.onmicrosoft.com is
>>> still being delivered.
>>
>> Quite sad really, I've clung on to my domain since 1992.  Someone was
>> actually able to get hold of me recently due to my Demon e-mail
>> address still being in a file I upoaded on AmiNet.
>>
>> Not anymore, www.incanus.demon.co.uk is now dead, I did put in a
>> permanent redirect before it died but is still a sad day.  No longer
>> can I see, don't argue with me, I've got an e-mail address that's
>> older than you.
>>
>
> Well, 3rd August and my demon website still seems to be there, even
> though I spent ages trying to get it deleted both before and after
> "Namesco day".

Depending on how hard you tried it might or might not have vanished on
28/7 - at least until this morning...

When mine has spontaneously reappeared!

> I don't really know enough to be sure that mine is still really there or
> if I'm seeing a cached or ghost version.  If anyone wants to have a look
> - www.cowling1.demon.co.uk - I would welcome feedback.
>
> As soon as we heard about the transfer, within hours, I edited the site
> to leave just a front page, but Demon had already sent it over to
> Namesco.  The old unredacted and wildly out of date one reappeared at
> switchover and remained, but I just ran out of energy on endless phone
> calls.

It seems that the harder you tried to get it deleted in the past the
more likely it is to have survived the effects of Voodoo exorcism.

That said they managed to delete mine correctly on 28/7 only for a
zombie version to spring up again as undead this morning. Or is it just
vampires that have to mature underground for a while and avoid sunlight?

Perhaps it has reappeared today because it is cloudy...

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 16:41:13, Richard_CC
<ric...@nospam.rjcresources.co.uk> wrote:
[]

>Well, 3rd August and my demon website still seems to be there, even
>though I spent ages trying to get it deleted both before and after
>"Namesco day".
>
>
>I don't really know enough to be sure that mine is still really there
>or if I'm seeing a cached or ghost version. If anyone wants to have a
>look - www.cowling1.demon.co.uk - I would welcome feedback.

[]
Assuming it's "RJC Resources", then I can see it; certainly not cached
in this machine, as I've never been to it before. (May be cached in
Namesco's server or something like that I suppose, but for practical
purposes, that's the same as still being up, I think.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Why doesn't DOS ever say "EXCELLENT command or filename!"

[Peter Hill]

On 03/08/2020 17:08, Martin Brown wrote:
> It seems that the harder you tried to get it deleted in the past the
> more likely it is to have survived the effects of Voodoo exorcism.

Mine is still up and I did nothing at all.

The only way they can delete is if you closed a webhosting account that
you paid for. Then when they close the account they delete the storage
that was being paid for. Until you make the first payment you don't have
an account to close.

As for re-resurrection maybe someone had a very long hosting contract.
And is now suing for loss of business.

A long time ago before Janet I know at least one college had internet
from Demon.

Also don't forget Demon "Link house" was a cornerstone of the UK
internet routing.

[Andy]

In message <rg9cg4$1kql$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote
[

>Has this happened to anyone else's website or was mine singled out for
>spontaneous resurrection?
>

Mine's still exhorting me not to waste space...
--
Andy Taylor [President, Treasurer & Editor of the Austrian Philatelic Society].
Visit www dot austrianphilately dot com

[Andy]

In message <rg9cq5$1qhv$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote
[

>That said they managed to delete mine correctly on 28/7 only for a
>zombie version to spring up again as undead this morning. Or is it just
>vampires that have to mature underground for a while and avoid sunlight?
>

Potatoes?

[Andy]

In message <rg9b6p$ecl$1...@dont-email.me>, Richard_CC
<ric...@nospam.rjcresources.co.uk> wrote

>
>I don't really know enough to be sure that mine is still really there
>or if I'm seeing a cached or ghost version. If anyone wants to have a
>look - www.cowling1.demon.co.uk - I would welcome feedback.
>

It welcomes me to RJC Resources : HR Services and Research

[John Hall]

In message <rgb4js$fsc$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Peter Hill <sky...@yahoo.com>
writes
<snip>

>A long time ago before Janet I know at least one college had internet
>from Demon.

The JANET IP service actually started before Demon was launched in 1992,
so perhaps the college in question was late in linking into JANET and
found it easier (or cheaper?) to get Demon first?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JANET#JIPS%20and%20SuperJanet
--
John Hall

You can divide people into two categories:
those who divide people into two categories and those who don't

[John Hall]

In message <8WXbxlDM...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>, Andy
<an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes

>In message <rg9cg4$1kql$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown
><'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote
>[
>>Has this happened to anyone else's website or was mine singled out for
>>spontaneous resurrection?
>>
>Mine's still exhorting me not to waste space...

Mine too. It's a Namesco advert, saying:

Don’t let this space go to waste

Make jhall.demon.co.uk work hard for you

[Rick Hewett]

On Mon 03 Aug Martin Brown wrote:
> It gets weirder - my Demon nezumi website which vanished last week has
> reappeared today and magically gone back to service.homepages.demon.net.
>
> nezumi's MX records have been trashed and the fixed IP address is gone.
>
> Has this happened to anyone else's website or was mine singled out for
> spontaneous resurrection?

Ho hum. Can you still update it, or is it now another Demon zombie site?

> Hope you are keeping well in this crazy new world!

Doing well enough, having abandoned Orpington and moved to Dursley
almost two years ago, we're now in the throes of extending the house and
landscaping the garden, so plenty to be getting on with even if we are
stuck at home...

> Were you at the virtual BAA talk last week on Betelgeuse (probably not
> going supernova?).

No, I missed that. TBH, while Speedtest tells me I'm getting 27 down and
7 up, which should be plenty for such events, real-world applications
tell a different story. Zoom/Webex/Jitsi/whatever tend to struggle a bit
with video, so I guess the network hereabouts suffers somewhat from lack
of capacity...

--
..Rick Hewett http://www.hewett.org/

Take the trash out to reply...

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 10:31:18, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <8WXbxlDM...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>, Andy
><an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes
>>In message <rg9cg4$1kql$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown
>><'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>[
>>>Has this happened to anyone else's website or was mine singled out
>>>for spontaneous resurrection?
>>>
>>Mine's still exhorting me not to waste space...
>
>Mine too. It's a Namesco advert, saying:
>
>Don’t let this space go to waste
>Make jhall.demon.co.uk work hard for you

That (with obvious modification) has been appearing for months - I think
even before the Vodafone decision to close *.demon.* altogether - for
pages that _were_ sites hosted by Namesco but the owners subsequently
stopped the Namesco hosting a while back. It may also be happening, now,
in batches, to those who _have_ been paying Namesco to keep them going.

Ones that were Demon ones but their owners _never_ transferred to
Namesco, it seems have a fair chance of fully existing as a zombie site
(Demon having transferred a [slightly old] copy of _all_ of them to
Namesco before the first handover). Especially, it seems, if their
previous owners have asked Namesco to take them down!

Ones that _never_ were Demon sites - in other words, if you make one up,
such as www.xyzzy.demon.co.uk (with or without the www. part), as you
might expect, don't resolve.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

When I'm good, I'm very good. But when I'm bad - I'm better! (Mae West)

[Martin Brown]

On 04/08/2020 22:20, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 10:31:18, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <8WXbxlDM...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>, Andy
>> <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes
>>> In message <rg9cg4$1kql$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown
>>> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>> [
>>>> Has this happened to anyone else's website or was mine singled out
>>>> for spontaneous resurrection?
>>>>
>>> Mine's still exhorting me not to waste space...
>>
>> Mine too. It's a Namesco advert, saying:
>>
>> Don’t let this space go to waste
>> Make jhall.demon.co.uk work hard for you
>
> That (with obvious modification) has been appearing for months - I think
> even before the Vodafone decision to close *.demon.* altogether - for
> pages that _were_ sites hosted by Namesco but the owners subsequently
> stopped the Namesco hosting a while back. It may also be happening, now,
> in batches, to those who _have_ been paying Namesco to keep them going.

Namesco in the transfer offer to port your existing Demon website onto
whatever domain name you choose to use going forwards (or not in my case
since the only reason I kept mine going was links to it from elsewhere).
It was tiny anyway and so I have set up a mirror at nezumidemon.co.uk
My hosting with them will lapse at next renewal.

As an indication of just how incompetent Vodafone are there is also an
doppleganger of my domain called nesumi.demon.co.uk caused by a Voodoo
practitioner mishearing a call from Namesco support. I gave up trying to
get it fixed in the end since life is too short.

>
> Ones that were Demon ones but their owners _never_ transferred to
> Namesco, it seems have a fair chance of fully existing as a zombie site
> (Demon having transferred a [slightly old] copy of _all_ of them to
> Namesco before the first handover). Especially, it seems, if their
> previous owners have asked Namesco to take them down!

It is random. I also know of ones that were already zombies even before
Demon threw them over the wall at Namesco. If no one tried to claim them
then they lumber on without an owner. It is more mysterious why the ones
that were asked to be deleted were not (perhaps a problem proving
ownership since at handover they didn't know me from Adam).

More peculiar is that mine was terminated as predicted on 28/7 and then
spuriously resurrected on Monday morning. It is now a zombie as the ftp
server refuses connections from the ftp client "unauthorised access".

>
> Ones that _never_ were Demon sites - in other words, if you make one up,
> such as www.xyzzy.demon.co.uk (with or without the www. part), as you
> might expect, don't resolve.

What I have discovered in addition to the above is that if you still
have email with Namesco on Office365 you might also accept mail to

nezumidemononcascade.onmicrosoft.com

for valid mail aliases on the domain (or possibly only for actual mail
accounts). This may or may not work for you - the ones I have tried so
far are approximately 50:50 and low numbers.

nslookup shows that my domain has valid MX records with
nameserver = ns1-208-azure-dns.com
mail handler = azuredns-hostmaster.microsoft.com

The ones that don't work fail non-existent domain despite the fact that
nslookup with set debug shows valid MX records for said non-existent
domain. I am out of my depth at this point.

phaedrusdemononcascade.onmicrosoft.com

Is an example where mail to known accounts bounces. As is

asequoowdemononcascade.onmicrosoft.com
(but that one was dead in the water even before Namesco got it)

I'd be interested in a straw poll to see how many people this works for
and whether if it doesn't work you get the same error on nslookup.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Richard_CC]

On 04/08/2020 09:42, Andy wrote:
> In message <rg9b6p$ecl$1...@dont-email.me>, Richard_CC
> <ric...@nospam.rjcresources.co.uk> wrote
>>
>> I don't really know enough to be sure that mine is still really there
>> or if I'm seeing a cached or ghost version.  If anyone wants to have a
>> look - www.cowling1.demon.co.uk - I would welcome feedback.
>>
> It welcomes me to RJC Resources : HR Services and Research
>

Bother! It's still there.

We've retired now .....

All gone a bit bit Kafka after transfer. Never paid for it so can't
stop paying for it so it's there. Maybe they have been trying to
contact me on my demon email address which no longer exists because I
never paid for it etc.etc.

Some millennia hence, a warlord from Planet Zarg might need help with
employing people on planet Earth. A quick planetary internet search
will come up with my details and he will waste many zarg-years trying to
call me up.

Things that survive when other life forms die: .. cockroaches,
blue-green algae and a few demon websites.

[Peter Hill]

On 09/08/2020 18:14, Richard_CC wrote:
> On 04/08/2020 09:42, Andy wrote:
>> In message <rg9b6p$ecl$1...@dont-email.me>, Richard_CC
>> <ric...@nospam.rjcresources.co.uk> wrote
>>>
>>> I don't really know enough to be sure that mine is still really there
>>> or if I'm seeing a cached or ghost version.  If anyone wants to have
>>> a look - www.cowling1.demon.co.uk - I would welcome feedback.
>>>
>> It welcomes me to RJC Resources : HR Services and Research
>>
> Bother!  It's still there.
>
> We've retired now .....
>
> All gone a bit bit Kafka after transfer.  Never paid for it so can't
> stop paying for it so it's there.  Maybe they have been trying to
> contact me on my demon email address which no longer exists because I
> never paid for it etc.etc.
>

I paid to keep my Demon e-mail up until 28th of last month. They never
contacted me about the zombie web page I hadn't paid for.

[Martin Brown]

Is it still there now? A proportion have vanished on the 28th July
although some like mine spontaneously resurrected on Mon 3rd August.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Peter Hill]

Still present.

[Brian Howie]

On 09/08/2020 18:14, Richard_CC wrote:

This one has gone. It dates back some considerable way.

C:\WINDOWS\system32>ping nospam.demon.co.uk
Ping request could not find host nospam.demon.co.uk. Please check the
name and try again.

Brian

--
Brian

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[John Hall]

In message <rhephr$a35$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Howie
<nos...@b-howie.co.uk> writes

>>
>This one has gone. It dates back some considerable way.
>
>C:\WINDOWS\system32>ping nospam.demon.co.uk
>Ping request could not find host nospam.demon.co.uk. Please check the
>name and try again.

Originally set up by Richard Ashton and offered for use to all Demon
users as a spamtrap, IIRC.

[Martin Brown]

On 17/08/2020 22:05, John Hall wrote:
> In message <rhephr$a35$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Howie
> <nos...@b-howie.co.uk> writes
>>>
>> This one has gone. It dates back some considerable way.
>>
>> C:\WINDOWS\system32>ping nospam.demon.co.uk
>> Ping request could not find host nospam.demon.co.uk. Please check the
>> name and try again.
>
> Originally set up by Richard Ashton and offered for use to all Demon
> users as a spamtrap, IIRC.

Of my friends subdomains that I can remember only

phaedrus.demon.co.uk still resolves as IP 158.152.11.61

but I get 100% packet loss when pinging it

oddly it is still on ns0.demon.co.uk and
responsible mail addr hostmaster.demon.net

Boggle ! So is mine now but it *was* different on exorcism day.

Mine no longer resolves to an IP address but that has been a long
standing fault ever since they threw Demonites over the wall to Namesco.

NSLOOKUP on nospam.demon.co.uk is particularly funny -

it shows a bunch of A and AAA records for it
followed by an error message: Non-existent domain.

It has a surprisingly large set of entries for a non-existent domain.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[brian]

In message <drxIrgDYEvOfFwGv@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes

>In message <rhephr$a35$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Howie
><nos...@b-howie.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>This one has gone. It dates back some considerable way.
>>
>>C:\WINDOWS\system32>ping nospam.demon.co.uk
>>Ping request could not find host nospam.demon.co.uk. Please check the
>>name and try again.
>
>Originally set up by Richard Ashton and offered for use to all Demon
>users as a spamtrap, IIRC.

Yes that's how I remember it. I've had to do my own one.

Brian
--
Brian Howie

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 at 11:07:56, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
[]

>Of my friends subdomains that I can remember only
>
>phaedrus.demon.co.uk still resolves as IP 158.152.11.61
>
>but I get 100% packet loss when pinging it

[]
My old soft255.dcu still resolves to the static IP I was given all those
years ago. (It doesn't ping, but never did - I always understood that to
be because I'd have to operate my own server for it to do so.) I went to
Namesco at the handover (for email and a tiny website), and left them at
the change to Office365 or whatever it was.

So they've not taken over all the fixed IPs in 158.152.*.* yet - or, at
least, haven't stopped the old names resolving.

news.dcu not only resolves but pings. Just for fun, I just tried ticking
it under Configure News (I still had the set of settings), and got this:

Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:45 Collecting Usenet News from news.demon.co.uk
Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:45 Collecting Usenet News from usenet.plus.net
Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] <- 200 Welcome
Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] -> MODE READER
Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] <- 201 Welcome (No Posting)
Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] -> XHDR Message-ID
Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] -> XOVER
Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] <- 480 Authentication Required*
Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 Authentication required for news.demon.co.uk
Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] <- 480 Authentication Required*

I didn't want to turn off the PlusNet one in case it broke something,
but the last two or three lines suggest that news.dcu is still not only
responding to pings but also to NNTP and asking for authentication.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"When _I_ saw him, he was dead." "uh, he looked exactly the same when he was
alive, except he was vertical." (The Trouble with Harry)

[John Hall]

In message <r3FZkDTK...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@255soft.uk> writes

>news.dcu not only resolves but pings. Just for fun, I just tried
>ticking it under Configure News (I still had the set of settings), and
>got this:
>
>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:45 Collecting Usenet News from news.demon.co.uk
>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:45 Collecting Usenet News from usenet.plus.net
>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] <- 200 Welcome
>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] -> MODE READER
>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] <- 201 Welcome (No Posting)
>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] -> XHDR Message-ID
>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] -> XOVER
>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] <- 480 Authentication Required*
>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 Authentication required for news.demon.co.uk
>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] <- 480 Authentication Required*
>
>I didn't want to turn off the PlusNet one in case it broke something,
>but the last two or three lines suggest that news.dcu is still not only
>responding to pings but also to NNTP and asking for authentication.

Didn't this come up a few months ago, either here or on dist? If you
remember, Demon news was outsourced to a company called Highwinds, and
ISTR that my investigation showed that, though the news server in
question was now outsourced to a different outfit, Highwinds had either
forgotten or never bothered to remove the DNS entry for news.demon.co.uk
that points to it.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 09:55:08, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <r3FZkDTK...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@255soft.uk> writes
>>news.dcu not only resolves but pings. Just for fun, I just tried
>>ticking it under Configure News (I still had the set of settings), and
>>got this:
>>
>>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:45 Collecting Usenet News from news.demon.co.uk
>>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:45 Collecting Usenet News from usenet.plus.net
>>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] <- 200 Welcome
>>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] -> MODE READER
>>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] <- 201 Welcome (No Posting)
>>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] -> XHDR Message-ID
>>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] -> XOVER
>>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] <- 480 Authentication Required*
>>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 Authentication required for news.demon.co.uk
>>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:13:46 NNTP[1223] <- 480 Authentication Required*
>>
>>I didn't want to turn off the PlusNet one in case it broke something,
>>but the last two or three lines suggest that news.dcu is still not
>>only responding to pings but also to NNTP and asking for authentication.
>
>Didn't this come up a few months ago, either here or on dist? If you

It did - it was me helping (?) Eileen Conn with the demise (touch wood,
all is OK now for her), and at one point she sent me (screenshots of)
the log, and I noticed something like the above (she'd left the news
collection ticked, though didn't use news).

>remember, Demon news was outsourced to a company called Highwinds, and
>ISTR that my investigation showed that, though the news server in
>question was now outsourced to a different outfit, Highwinds had either
>forgotten or never bothered to remove the DNS entry for
>news.demon.co.uk that points to it.

Yes, I remember you saying something like that. Whether news.demon.co.uk
actually is really the Highwinds server just as an alias, or is really a
zombie newsserver still alive and asking for authentication, I was
unable to check, as I assumed I didn't any longer have a set of
authentication credentials it'd accept. (The above log extract suggests
either that my old ones no longer work, or that I didn't actually need
to supply any back when I was a Demon customer. [The fact that it asks
twice suggests the latter i. e. I wasn't sending any, but one of the
requests might be from the plusnet news server.])

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense,
reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei

[Peter Hill]

Authentication was by IP address, away from home I think most people
used google groups. No one has an Demon IP address any more. The service
was terminated many years ago, I had to switch to Freenews.netfront and
AIOE. Vodafone cited "obsolete hardware" as the reason they were
terminating Demon broadband service.

[John Hall]

In message <LyOBVhxn...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Presumably the current authentication requirement would be whatever the
company to whom Highwinds has outsourced the server has specified.

[Martin Brown]

On 20/08/2020 07:36, Peter Hill wrote:

> Authentication was by IP address, away from home I think most people
> used google groups. No one has an Demon IP address any more. The service
> was terminated many years ago, I had to switch to Freenews.netfront and
> AIOE. Vodafone cited "obsolete hardware" as the reason they were
> terminating Demon broadband service.

My fixed IP address was inadvertantly allocated to nesumi.demon.co.uk
due to a bad phone line between Demon and Namesco. It sometimes caused
me grief with corporate antispam measures that marked my emails down
because reverse DNS lookup had failed. I was unusual though since most
of the older Demon subdomains correctly retained their fixed IP address.

These still do according to NSLOOKUP it is one of the oldest ones around

phaedrus.demon.co.uk 158.152.11.61
no-dns-yet.demon.co.uk 158.152.11.62 (the default for duds)
chelt22-dwh.demon.co.uk 158.152.58.100

I haven't found any others. ISTR there is a way of downloading the
compact DNS IP records for entire 158.152 block but I forget how.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Andy]

In message <0S$RsxANSiPfFwYY@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
[

>Presumably the current authentication requirement would be whatever the
>company to whom Highwinds has outsourced the server has specified.

Serco?

[John Hall]

In message <VVOhhPE$vjPf...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>, Andy
<an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes

>In message <0S$RsxANSiPfFwYY@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>[
>>Presumably the current authentication requirement would be whatever
>>the company to whom Highwinds has outsourced the server has specified.
>
>Serco?

ISTR that I did find out when I investigated a couple of months back,
but I can't now remember who it was.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 08:29:12, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
[]

>of the older Demon subdomains correctly retained their fixed IP
>address.
>
>These still do according to NSLOOKUP it is one of the oldest ones around
>
>phaedrus.demon.co.uk 158.152.11.61
>no-dns-yet.demon.co.uk 158.152.11.62 (the default for duds)
>chelt22-dwh.demon.co.uk 158.152.58.100
>
>I haven't found any others. ISTR there is a way of downloading the
>compact DNS IP records for entire 158.152 block but I forget how.
>

My old soft255.demon.co.uk still resolves to 158.152.73.14 according to
ping (both Turnpike's and Windows 7's). (Doesn't _respond_ to the pings,
but then it never did. In the early days I understood it to be the case
that it would have if I'd actually run a server - which of course in
dial-up days I wasn't going to.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All humanity is divided into three classes: those who are immovable, those who
are movable, and those who move! - Benjamin Franklin

[Peter Hill]

On 21/08/2020 00:08, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 08:29:12, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
> []
>> of the older Demon subdomains correctly retained their fixed IP address.
>>
>> These still do according to NSLOOKUP it is one of the oldest ones around
>>
>> phaedrus.demon.co.uk   158.152.11.61
>> no-dns-yet.demon.co.uk  158.152.11.62  (the default for duds)
>> chelt22-dwh.demon.co.uk 158.152.58.100
>>
>> I haven't found any others. ISTR there is a way of downloading the
>> compact DNS IP records for entire 158.152 block but I forget how.
>>
> My old soft255.demon.co.uk still resolves to 158.152.73.14 according to
> ping (both Turnpike's and Windows 7's). (Doesn't _respond_ to the pings,
> but then it never did. In the early days I understood it to be the case
> that it would have if I'd actually run a server - which of course in
> dial-up days I wasn't going to.)

How long ago did you leave Demon?

Who was Demon owned by at the time? Thus, Scottish, C&W or Vodafone?

I wasn't in 158.152 block
skyshack.demon.co.uk no longer resolves.
80.175.86.205 times out

www.skyshack.demon.co.uk is still alive on service.homepages.demon.net
[85.233.160.129]. Which isn't in the 158.152 block.

[Joe]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 00:08:55 +0100
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:


> My old soft255.demon.co.uk still resolves to 158.152.73.14 according
> to ping (both Turnpike's and Windows 7's). (Doesn't _respond_ to the
> pings, but then it never did. In the early days I understood it to be
> the case that it would have if I'd actually run a server - which of
> course in dial-up days I wasn't going to.)

Anything with an IP address is expected to respond to pings by default,
for troubleshooting purposes, but things like Internet routers can
usually have this feature disabled, for 'security'.

The bad guys can usually obtain some response from almost anything,
even when it is trying to be stealthy, and anyone harvesting source IPs
from a hacked website knows for certain that there's something
connected to all of them, at least some of the time.

--
Joe

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 10:33:49, Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 00:08:55 +0100
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> My old soft255.demon.co.uk still resolves to 158.152.73.14 according
>> to ping (both Turnpike's and Windows 7's). (Doesn't _respond_ to the
>> pings, but then it never did. In the early days I understood it to be
>> the case that it would have if I'd actually run a server - which of
>> course in dial-up days I wasn't going to.)
>
>Anything with an IP address is expected to respond to pings by default,
>for troubleshooting purposes, but things like Internet routers can
>usually have this feature disabled, for 'security'.

But in the days of dialup, what was it that actually _had_ the IP
address (a fixed one, as Demon customers got)? Is that even a valid
question, or is it like asking what was there before the big bang, a
question that shouldn't be asked? In other words, when a Demon customer
- having been assigned their IP address - was only connected by dialup,
and someone pinged that address (either by name or address), where did
the ping requests get routed to?

>
>The bad guys can usually obtain some response from almost anything,
>even when it is trying to be stealthy, and anyone harvesting source IPs
>from a hacked website knows for certain that there's something
>connected to all of them, at least some of the time.
>
--

J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, as he fell off the bridge with his stick.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 08:49:59, Peter Hill <sky...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 21/08/2020 00:08, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 08:29:12, Martin Brown
>><'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>> []
>>> of the older Demon subdomains correctly retained their fixed IP address.
>>>
>>> These still do according to NSLOOKUP it is one of the oldest ones around
>>>
>>> phaedrus.demon.co.uk   158.152.11.61
>>> no-dns-yet.demon.co.uk  158.152.11.62  (the default for duds)
>>> chelt22-dwh.demon.co.uk 158.152.58.100
>>>
>>> I haven't found any others. ISTR there is a way of downloading the
>>>compact DNS IP records for entire 158.152 block but I forget how.
>>>
>> My old soft255.demon.co.uk still resolves to 158.152.73.14 according
>>to ping (both Turnpike's and Windows 7's). (Doesn't _respond_ to the
>>pings, but then it never did. In the early days I understood it to be
>>the case that it would have if I'd actually run a server - which of
>>course in dial-up days I wasn't going to.)
>
>How long ago did you leave Demon?
>
>Who was Demon owned by at the time? Thus, Scottish, C&W or Vodafone?

I'm not sure. I never _paid_ Demon anything after I had broadband, which
I think was not long after I moved in here, which was 2007. I have the
feeling I still had dial-up _access_, in theory, after that, but never
used it, not having a dial-up MoDem easily to hand. (I think I did
acquire a USB - rather than serial port or built-in - dial-up MoDem, but
don't remember ever using it.) I can't remember when I stopped paying
the tenner-a-month (plus VAT); didn't Demon switch to 0844 numbers at
some point? I don't think I'd have cut myself off completely for long.

I thought of the Namesco handover as probably the real stop, though I
still thought I _in theory_ might still have (pay as you go) dialup
access: I don't remember actively ever telling Demon I was don with
them. Ah, something's coming back faintly now: there was a point at
which "Demon" - I forget who owned them at that time, I _think_ it still
said Demon on the paperwork - ceased the option of taking payment by
credit card, at least for _regular_ payments. I think that's when I
stopped _paying_ them (or, more strictly, they stopped taking payment);
as I say, I don't think I actually ever told them I wanted to break with
them. My (mostly zombie) website certainly remained online up to the
Namesco transition - which might have been before the cessation of
paying Demon; I do have a vague memory of paying both of them at one
point (and thinking that I should get my own domain to stop doing so). I
left Namesco - and, obviously, stopped paying _them_ - when they started
playing silly buggers, I think when they moved to Outlook.

>
>I wasn't in 158.152 block
>skyshack.demon.co.uk no longer resolves.
>80.175.86.205 times out
>
>www.skyshack.demon.co.uk is still alive on service.homepages.demon.net
>[85.233.160.129]. Which isn't in the 158.152 block.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Joe]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 18:13:39 +0100
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 10:33:49, Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote:

> >
> >Anything with an IP address is expected to respond to pings by
> >default, for troubleshooting purposes, but things like Internet
> >routers can usually have this feature disabled, for 'security'.
>
> But in the days of dialup, what was it that actually _had_ the IP
> address (a fixed one, as Demon customers got)? Is that even a valid
> question, or is it like asking what was there before the big bang, a
> question that shouldn't be asked? In other words, when a Demon
> customer
> - having been assigned their IP address - was only connected by
> dialup, and someone pinged that address (either by name or address),
> where did the ping requests get routed to?
> >

It's a while ago now, but I thought that dial-up used PPP, the
point-to-point protocol. That certainly has an IP address at each end.

It was a real Internet connection, so IP routing must have occurred
over the link, so if Demon didn't use PPP, they would have had to
invent something quite like it.

--
Joe

[Martin Brown]

On 21/08/2020 18:13, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 10:33:49, Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 00:08:55 +0100
>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My old soft255.demon.co.uk still resolves to 158.152.73.14 according
>>> to ping (both Turnpike's and Windows 7's). (Doesn't _respond_ to the
>>> pings, but then it never did. In the early days I understood it to be
>>> the case that it would have if I'd actually run a server - which of
>>> course in dial-up days I wasn't going to.)
>>
>> Anything with an IP address is expected to respond to pings by default,
>> for troubleshooting purposes, but things like Internet routers can
>> usually have this feature disabled, for 'security'.
>
> But in the days of dialup, what was it that actually _had_ the IP
> address (a fixed one, as Demon customers got)? Is that even a valid
> question, or is it like asking what was there before the big bang, a
> question that shouldn't be asked? In other words, when a Demon customer
> - having been assigned their IP address - was only connected by dialup,
> and someone pinged that address (either by name or address), where did
> the ping requests get routed to?

In the old days the dialup link was running PPP and the IP address was
your home machine's address location on the Internet. Back then most of
us were running mail relays too and Demon used to probe for incorrectly
configured ones that could be exlpoited by spammers.

>> The bad guys can usually obtain some response from almost anything,
>> even when it is trying to be stealthy, and anyone harvesting source IPs
>> from a hacked website knows for certain that there's something
>> connected to all of them, at least some of the time.

It is unbelievable how much junk accumulates in website log files these
days from script kiddie attacks against WP and other CMS's.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Alan Woodford]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 08:56:41 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk>
wrote:

>It is unbelievable how much junk accumulates in website log files these
>days from script kiddie attacks against WP and other CMS's.

I must be getting old - I spent a good half-minute trying to figure out why
script kiddies would be targetting WordPerfect :-)

Alan Woodford

The Greying Lensman

[Joe]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 10:58:58 +0100
John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <VVOhhPE$vjPf...@kitzbuhel.co.uk>, Andy
> <an...@kitzbuhel.co.uk> writes
> >In message <0S$RsxANSiPfFwYY@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
> ><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
> >[
> >>Presumably the current authentication requirement would be whatever
> >>the company to whom Highwinds has outsourced the server has
> >>specified.
> >
> >Serco?
>
> ISTR that I did find out when I investigated a couple of months back,
> but I can't now remember who it was.

My website is still up, and still thirteen years out of date...

--
Joe

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

And mine still resolves to its fixed IP.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There's not an app for that.