Seem safe enough to me?

Anyone got anything terrible to say about them?

If not I think we'll use them

Lewis

me here wrote:
> Seem safe enough to me?
> 
> Anyone got anything terrible to say about them?
> 
> If not I think we'll use them
> 
> Lewis

I had a lot of trouble a while back with "too many concurrent SMTP 
sessions" which seems to indicate a lack of server capacity, but this 
hasn't been seen for a few months now.

Phil, London

On 04 Mar 2009, Philip Herlihy  wrote:

>me here wrote:

>> Anyone got anything terrible to say about them?

>> If not I think we'll use them


>I had a lot of trouble a while back with "too many concurrent SMTP 
>sessions" which seems to indicate a lack of server capacity, but
>this hasn't been seen for a few months now.

I've never used them for SMTP handling, but as a registrar (the 
question) have used them and had no problems (though I tend not 
to use many .uk domains, just a dozen or so, compared with many 
dozen domains using other types).

Thank you all very much indeed!

I see that there are indeed more ways of skinning a cat than choking
it to death with butter!

My latest preference for what I am trying to achieve is the following

<style type="text/css">
h2 {
padding-bottom: 0;
margin-bottom: 0;
color: blue
}

h2 + p {
text-indent: 20px;
color: red;
padding-top: 0;
margin-top:0;
}


This gives me an h2 with no bottom spacing (what I want) and a p with
no top spacing when it follows an h2, but I DO get inter p spacing
without having to add it manually.  I am pleased with this solution! 
Thanks  again and hopefully I shall be quiet now for a day or two
while I update my magnum-opus accordingly!

At 09:35:46 on Sat, 14 Mar 2009, me here  wrote in 
:

>Thanks  again and hopefully I shall be quiet now for a day or two
>while I update my magnum-opus accordingly!

The next thing you need to think about, I'm afraid, is your Usenet 
persona.  It's up to you if you don't want to give us a name;  however, 
I very much doubt whether you are actually Michael Grossman - so why are 
you using the domain here.com, which belongs to him, and exposing it to 
spam?  Why not use a truly .invalid e-mail address format in your From, 
and include a working Reply-To (which does not get auto-harvested for 
spam, because it does not form part of the subset of headers which the 
bots look at)?

As an example:  mail to my From address of 
 is automatically blackholed, whereas 
mail to my ReplyTo address of  is 
accepted - and, despite having been in use for some three years, has not 
yet started to receive spam.  (When it does, it can be easily changed 
for something else.)

If you don't want even to suggest your own e-mail address in your posts, 
even with an .invalid marker, set up a webmail account which you never 
read, and use that in your From.  Honestly, using somebody else's e-mail 
address without their permission is really *not* the done thing.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_munging> may help a bit.
-- 
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:44:45 +0000, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>At 09:35:46 on Sat, 14 Mar 2009, me here  wrote in 
>:
>
>>Thanks  again and hopefully I shall be quiet now for a day or two
>>while I update my magnum-opus accordingly!
>
>The next thing you need to think about, I'm afraid, is your Usenet 
>persona.  It's up to you if you don't want to give us a name;  however, 
>I very much doubt whether you are actually Michael Grossman - so why are 
>you using the domain here.com, which belongs to him, and exposing it to 
>spam?  Why not use a truly .invalid e-mail address format in your From, 
>and include a working Reply-To (which does not get auto-harvested for 
>spam, because it does not form part of the subset of headers which the 
>bots look at)?
>
<contrite>
You make a very valid point.  My error entirely on two points:

a) I didn't expect anyone actually to have the domain "here.com" with
all the eejits (me not excluded) who would use it whenever a website
impertinently demands an email address to let you do something that
doesn't need an email address - like viewing your fuel bills or
something similar!  

So, I have rather inconsiderately been using it: I shall stop. I have
a perfectly good dustbin of my own - the one for this message - I was
just lazy or in hurry and couldn't be bothered to type the extra
characters.  very very bad, really. 

 b) I do have a real "persona" in Agent - but as I hadn't sued it for
some while I forgot that it was set to what I thought was an address
that would be totally invalid.   

</contrite>

My experience of getting spam via usenet is, I'm afraid, historically
much worse than yours - and although I'm new to this HTML lark I've
big using Usenet since ... ages.   

So I should have known better and thank you for braiding me up.  I
haven't set up this "persona" properly yet, but I wanted to
acknowledge what you had said and let you know I intend to put it
right.

Lewis

"Molly Mockford"  wrote in 
message news:ZU8ZhHNti5uJFw9p@molly.mockford...
<snip>
:
: Why not use a truly .invalid e-mail address format in your 
From,
: and include a working Reply-To (which does not get 
auto-harvested for
: spam, because it does not form part of the subset of headers 
which the
: bots look at)?

Can you cite a reference for that statement please, how does 
anyone other than the bots writer/owner know what it looks for?
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

Jerry wrote:
> "Molly Mockford"  wrote in 
> message news:ZU8ZhHNti5uJFw9p@molly.mockford...
> <snip>
> :
> : Why not use a truly .invalid e-mail address format in your 
> From,
> : and include a working Reply-To (which does not get 
> auto-harvested for
> : spam, because it does not form part of the subset of headers 
> which the
> : bots look at)?

> Can you cite a reference for that statement please, how does 
> anyone other than the bots writer/owner know what it looks for?

There's probably no single reference and there's probably no one who 
really knows how the bot harvesters work in usenet, but there's a lot of 
people with a lot of experience of never getting any spam at all to 
reply-to addresses.

The one caveat to this - is that there are an explosion of websites 
which do nothing but copy usenet posts onto those sites and surround 
them with adverts.  I have no idea if those sites include reply-to 
headers on the page, if they do, then they've become fair game for web 
mail harvesters.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

At 13:37:25 on Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Jerry 
<mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote in 
<gpgcb8$li1$1@news.motzarella.org>:

>
>"Molly Mockford"  wrote in
>message news:ZU8ZhHNti5uJFw9p@molly.mockford...
><snip>
>:
>: Why not use a truly .invalid e-mail address format in your
>From,
>: and include a working Reply-To (which does not get
>auto-harvested for
>: spam, because it does not form part of the subset of headers
>which the
>: bots look at)?
>
>Can you cite a reference for that statement please, how does
>anyone other than the bots writer/owner know what it looks for?

It's the XOVER subset of headers which spam harvesters use, on the 
grounds of efficiency.  Reading through the entirety of every message 
would slow down their harvesting very considerably;  in order to get 
hold of Reply-To, they would have to have the body as well as all the 
headers!

You can read a bit about the News Overview Database, and the XOVER 
command which retrieves NOV information, at 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOV_(computers)>.  For more detail that 
you'll really want, go to RFC2822 and RFC1036.
-- 
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

At 13:26:14 on Sat, 14 Mar 2009, spam.goes.here2@ntlworld.com wrote in 
:

>So I should have known better and thank you for braiding me up.  I
>haven't set up this "persona" properly yet, but I wanted to
>acknowledge what you had said and let you know I intend to put it
>right.

Thank you!  And I think we have, between us, probably provided the first 
known example on Usenet of such a request being made, and complied with, 
without any rancour whatsoever :-)
-- 
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:26:14 +0000, spam.goes.here2@ntlworld.com put
finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>a) I didn't expect anyone actually to have the domain "here.com" with
>all the eejits (me not excluded) who would use it whenever a website
>impertinently demands an email address to let you do something that
>doesn't need an email address - like viewing your fuel bills or
>something similar!  

The domains 'example.com' and 'example.net' (and similar constructions
in other TLDs) are deliberately reserved for use where you need a
real-looking domain that doesn't actually belong to anyone.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk