From a BBC News article on spam:

"It also recommends ISPs block the port - known as port 25 - through which
spam travels".

Presumably via the tubes.


-- 
D-U-M-B
Everyone's accusing me!

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:46:31 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>From a BBC News article on spam:
>
>"It also recommends ISPs block the port - known as port 25 - through which
>spam travels".
>
>Presumably via the tubes.

I thought spam travelled via the port known as port 119. But maybe
that's just me. (And no one else.)

I wonder which is the port for mindcontrol.
-- 
YouTube Video of MI5 HorrorFags; www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e9x0TwHkbY
Jealous Gay Agents Masturbating Outside Window; www.mi5.com/evidence/#britspy
MI5 Tried to Kill Me in Florida 17/Nov/2001; www.mi5.com/evidence/#deathsquad
MindControl Torture and Proof It's Real; www.mi5.com/evidence/mc/mc.htm

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:41:08 +0100, MI5.Victim@privacy.net wrote:


<snip>

> I wonder which is the port for mindcontrol.

Davy's - served from the wood. Serious hangover material. One of the great
things of working in The City was the possibility of popping to a Davy's
wine bar, getting a pewter tankard of Old Wallop, some bread, and some
seriously good cheddar.


-- 
Sometimes the mind, for reasons we don't necessarily understand,
just decides to go to the store for a quart of milk.

In uk.misc,  (Hot Badger Deluxe) wrote in
<1lh1lptz0bhog.1nn0bygkziz9q$.dlg@40tude.net>::

>From a BBC News article on spam:
>
>"It also recommends ISPs block the port - known as port 25 - through which
>spam travels".

Great.  If my ISP does this, it's time for a new ISP.
-- 
Marc

  Rules are for the guidance of the Wise, and blind observance of Fools.  (Oscar Wilde)

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:04:45 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:

> In uk.misc,  (Hot Badger Deluxe) wrote in
> <1lh1lptz0bhog.1nn0bygkziz9q$.dlg@40tude.net>::
> 
>>From a BBC News article on spam:
>>
>>"It also recommends ISPs block the port - known as port 25 - through which
>>spam travels".
> 
> Great.  If my ISP does this, it's time for a new ISP.

I expect we will move towards a situation where consumer ISPs block 
and filter stuff and fence off their customers (in both directions).

Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.

It's too much to hope that the likes of Virgin will provide an opt-out
for the Clueful free of charge.

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:04:45 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
>> In uk.misc,  (Hot Badger Deluxe) wrote in
>> <1lh1lptz0bhog.1nn0bygkziz9q$.dlg@40tude.net>::
>> 
>>>From a BBC News article on spam:
>>>
>>>"It also recommends ISPs block the port - known as port 25 - through
>>>which spam travels".
>> 
>> Great.  If my ISP does this, it's time for a new ISP.
>
> I expect we will move towards a situation where consumer ISPs block 
> and filter stuff and fence off their customers (in both directions).
>
> Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
> for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.

Hasn't this already hapened, pretty much? Most people with the pile 'em
high likes of Virgin, Orange, TalkTalk, and the rest with the small
specialists?

Anyway, if port 25 gets blocked, use port 465, or 587 to your own mail
forwarding server. Afer all, trying to send directly over port 25 from a
consumer ADSL address isn't entirely reliable, as many are marked as
dynamic, or suchlike, in spam lists.

-- 
418 I'm a teapot

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:39:40 +0100, August West wrote:

> Hasn't this already hapened, pretty much? Most people with the pile 'em
> high likes of Virgin, Orange, TalkTalk, and the rest with the small
> specialists?

Not really.  Virgin have abandoned their translucent web-proxying, AFAIK.

> forwarding server. Afer all, trying to send directly over port 25 from a
> consumer ADSL address isn't entirely reliable, as many are marked as
> dynamic, or suchlike, in spam lists.

I connect to port 25 to test whether I can connect to port 25.

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

August West  wrote:

> Afer all, trying to send directly over port 25 from a
> consumer ADSL address isn't entirely reliable, as many are marked as
> dynamic, or suchlike, in spam lists.

Understatement. A few years back several customers signed up to a spam
blocking service that blocked my attempts to email them (because my
static IP was listed as dynamic). I simply gave up and after a time got
some angry requests by fax for the work that I should have delivered by
email some months before. I supplied copies of logs and replies
indicating that the email had been blocked, and the emails indicating
that my mail to postmaster had also been blocked and the numerous faxes
and letters I had sent to their netowrk administrator pointing out that
I was unable to mail anyone in their company and that it was the network
admin's job to sort it out.

It never got resolved and I now forward all mail to the customers in
question via a remailer. Large corporate networks are run by morons for
morons.

In uk.misc,  (August West) wrote in ::

>Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:04:45 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> In uk.misc,  (Hot Badger Deluxe) wrote in
>>> <1lh1lptz0bhog.1nn0bygkziz9q$.dlg@40tude.net>::
>>> 
>>>>From a BBC News article on spam:
>>>>
>>>>"It also recommends ISPs block the port - known as port 25 - through
>>>>which spam travels".
>>> 
>>> Great.  If my ISP does this, it's time for a new ISP.
>>
>> I expect we will move towards a situation where consumer ISPs block 
>> and filter stuff and fence off their customers (in both directions).
>>
>> Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
>> for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.
>
>Hasn't this already hapened, pretty much? Most people with the pile 'em
>high likes of Virgin, Orange, TalkTalk, and the rest with the small
>specialists?
>
>Anyway, if port 25 gets blocked, use port 465, or 587 to your own mail
>forwarding server. Afer all, trying to send directly over port 25 from a
>consumer ADSL address isn't entirely reliable, as many are marked as
>dynamic, or suchlike, in spam lists.

My mailserver is about 6" from my knee as I type.  I have a static IP
and a PTR record, and all my mail goes from here.
-- 
Marc

Remember- two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do

In uk.misc,  (Fevric J Glandules) wrote in
<x0r9k.17249$E41.13513@text.news.virginmedia.com>::

>On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:04:45 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
>> In uk.misc,  (Hot Badger Deluxe) wrote in
>> <1lh1lptz0bhog.1nn0bygkziz9q$.dlg@40tude.net>::
>> 
>>>From a BBC News article on spam:
>>>
>>>"It also recommends ISPs block the port - known as port 25 - through which
>>>spam travels".
>> 
>> Great.  If my ISP does this, it's time for a new ISP.
>
>I expect we will move towards a situation where consumer ISPs block 
>and filter stuff and fence off their customers (in both directions).
>
>Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
>for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.

Well, I'm with Zen at the moment, who are somewhat more clueful than the
general run of things.
>
>It's too much to hope that the likes of Virgin will provide an opt-out
>for the Clueful free of charge.

Why would you care?
-- 
Marc

Remember- two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:22:03 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:

<snip>

> My mailserver is about 6" from my knee as I type.

I bet you say that to all the girls.


-- 
Let's be careful out there...

Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:39:40 +0100, August West wrote:
>
>> Hasn't this already hapened, pretty much? Most people with the pile 'em
>> high likes of Virgin, Orange, TalkTalk, and the rest with the small
>> specialists?
>
> Not really.  Virgin have abandoned their translucent web-proxying, AFAIK.

No, not port blocvking, but the mass consumer/clueful ISP split.

>> forwarding server. Afer all, trying to send directly over port 25 from a
>> consumer ADSL address isn't entirely reliable, as many are marked as
>> dynamic, or suchlike, in spam lists.
>
> I connect to port 25 to test whether I can connect to port 25.

Missed my point; lots of mail recivers, like me, block mail from
domestic ADSL blocks; but we accept conenctions from them, so just
connecting tells you nothing, untill you try to initate HELO - then you
get bounced.

-- 
High thoughts must have a high language

Marc Wilson  writes:

> In uk.misc,  (August West) wrote in ::
>
>>Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:04:45 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> In uk.misc,  (Hot Badger Deluxe) wrote in
>>>> <1lh1lptz0bhog.1nn0bygkziz9q$.dlg@40tude.net>::
>>>> 
>>>>>From a BBC News article on spam:
>>>>>
>>>>>"It also recommends ISPs block the port - known as port 25 - through
>>>>>which spam travels".
>>>> 
>>>> Great.  If my ISP does this, it's time for a new ISP.
>>>
>>> I expect we will move towards a situation where consumer ISPs block 
>>> and filter stuff and fence off their customers (in both directions).
>>>
>>> Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
>>> for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.
>>
>>Hasn't this already hapened, pretty much? Most people with the pile 'em
>>high likes of Virgin, Orange, TalkTalk, and the rest with the small
>>specialists?
>>
>>Anyway, if port 25 gets blocked, use port 465, or 587 to your own mail
>>forwarding server. Afer all, trying to send directly over port 25 from a
>>consumer ADSL address isn't entirely reliable, as many are marked as
>>dynamic, or suchlike, in spam lists.
>
> My mailserver is about 6" from my knee as I type.  I have a static IP
> and a PTR record, and all my mail goes from here.

And your point was?

-- 
I second that emotion

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:38:49 +0100, August West wrote:

> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
> 
>> I connect to port 25 to test whether I can connect to port 25.
> 
> Missed my point; lots of mail recivers, like me, block mail from

You missed mine - I'm usually poking port 25 to see if there's something
there or not.  But sometimes I carry on to try and send an email:

> domestic ADSL blocks; but we accept conenctions from them, so just
> connecting tells you nothing, untill you try to initate HELO - then you
> get bounced.

Hmmm.

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:20:40 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:

> In uk.misc,  (Fevric J Glandules) wrote in
> <x0r9k.17249$E41.13513@text.news.virginmedia.com>::
> 
>>It's too much to hope that the likes of Virgin will provide an opt-out
>>for the Clueful free of charge.
> 
> Why would you care?

Cos sometimes I go somewhere where the interweb comes down a Virgin pipe.
And I don't want to go through the hassle of changing it.

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

August West  wrote:

> Missed my point; lots of mail recivers, like me, block mail from
> domestic ADSL blocks; but we accept conenctions from them, so just
> connecting tells you nothing, untill you try to initate HELO - then you
> get bounced.

Pah, you should be dragged out and burned at a stake.

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) writes:

> August West  wrote:
>
>> Missed my point; lots of mail recivers, like me, block mail from
>> domestic ADSL blocks; but we accept conenctions from them, so just
>> connecting tells you nothing, untill you try to initate HELO - then you
>> get bounced.
>
> Pah, you should be dragged out and burned at a stake.

Why? My system, my rules.

-- 
How was I to know?

August West  wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) writes:
> 
> > August West  wrote:
> >
> >> Missed my point; lots of mail recivers, like me, block mail from
> >> domestic ADSL blocks; but we accept conenctions from them, so just
> >> connecting tells you nothing, untill you try to initate HELO - then you
> >> get bounced.
> >
> > Pah, you should be dragged out and burned at a stake.
> 
> Why?

Because it would be entertaining.

> My system, my rules.

Oh indeed, and if I say the same and refuse to forward via a
remailer/ISP then nothing moves. Well since you have (0) interest in
mail from me, that's not so in this case, but in general stroo.

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) writes:

> August West  wrote:
>
>> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) writes:
>> 
>> > August West  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Missed my point; lots of mail recivers, like me, block mail from
>> >> domestic ADSL blocks; but we accept conenctions from them, so just
>> >> connecting tells you nothing, untill you try to initate HELO - then you
>> >> get bounced.
>> >
>> > Pah, you should be dragged out and burned at a stake.
>> 
>> Why?
>
> Because it would be entertaining.
>
>> My system, my rules.
>
> Oh indeed, and if I say the same and refuse to forward via a
> remailer/ISP then nothing moves. Well since you have (0) interest in
> mail from me, that's not so in this case, but in general stroo.

Only if your IP adress is, according to your IPS, in a dynamic block,
which I presume it isn't (I meant dynamic not domestic).

-- 
In the summertime, when you were with me

On 2008-06-28, Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:04:45 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
>> In uk.misc,  (Hot Badger Deluxe) wrote in
>> <1lh1lptz0bhog.1nn0bygkziz9q$.dlg@40tude.net>::
>> 
>>>From a BBC News article on spam:
>>>
>>>"It also recommends ISPs block the port - known as port 25 - through which
>>>spam travels".
>> 
>> Great.  If my ISP does this, it's time for a new ISP.
>
> I expect we will move towards a situation where consumer ISPs block 
> and filter stuff and fence off their customers (in both directions).
>
> Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
> for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.

I actually think this is a Good Idea.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

August West  wrote:

> 
> Only if your IP adress is, according to your IPS, in a dynamic block,
> which I presume it isn't (I meant dynamic not domestic).

Mine is, despite being static. And after many years of screaming the
fuck about that, I've just given up.

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> > Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
> > for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.
> 
> I actually think this is a Good Idea.

I wonder who the specialist ISPs would be? I suppose Gradwell might make
a stab at it, they seem to be closer to the original Demon philosophy at
the moment that anyone else.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:25:01 +0000, Huge wrote:

> On 2008-06-28, Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I expect we will move towards a situation where consumer ISPs block 
>> and filter stuff and fence off their customers (in both directions).
>>
>> Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
>> for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.
> 
> I actually think this is a Good Idea.

On the whole, prolly, except that (as mentioned) you probably won't
be able to opt out, and the mainstream ISPs will introduce brain-dead
measures along the lines of the existing one where BT scan the 
"From:" line of outgoing emails to make sure they're "valid".

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

Hot Badger Deluxe wrote:
> From a BBC News article on spam:
>
> "It also recommends ISPs block the port - known as port 25 - through
> which spam travels".

Well it does when I send it. V14GRA Pee Nis implants anyoneN Just write 
to Madam Abacha...

On 2008-06-28, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Large corporate networks are run by morons for
> morons.

I'd dispute the "by" bit. But absolutely concur on the "for" bit.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 28 Jun 2008 19:56:08 GMT, Huge wrote:

> On 2008-06-28, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Large corporate networks are run by morons for
>> morons.
> 
> I'd dispute the "by" bit. But absolutely concur on the "for" bit.

IAWTP

Back in the day, when I was administering ClearCase for some bods in
Bangalore, their network admins decided to block NetBIOS - without telling
anyone. 

OK - ClearCase's network requirements were quite staggeringly absurd,
but...

Then the local network admins decided to "tighten up" the firewalls with
all of our clients. Without checking with anyone. The stories that I could
tell would probably not surprise you at all, but I want to keep my job.

Anyone who thinks that working for a LARGE multinational company will
prevent this from happening...

hahahahahahahaahahahhaahahahahahahahaha

HMC&E were far better. OK, one of our travel expenses documents had so many
copies, that you couldn't actually press hard enough with a pen to get
through to the bottom copy, but everything was defined. And obeyed.

And the bar was "queen's kitchen", meaning no tax or duty...


-- 
In order to compose, all you need to do is remember a tune that
nobody else has thought of.

In uk.misc,  (August West) wrote in ::

>Marc Wilson  writes:
>
>> In uk.misc,  (August West) wrote in ::
>>
>>>Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:04:45 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In uk.misc,  (Hot Badger Deluxe) wrote in
>>>>> <1lh1lptz0bhog.1nn0bygkziz9q$.dlg@40tude.net>::
>>>>> 
>>>>>>From a BBC News article on spam:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"It also recommends ISPs block the port - known as port 25 - through
>>>>>>which spam travels".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Great.  If my ISP does this, it's time for a new ISP.
>>>>
>>>> I expect we will move towards a situation where consumer ISPs block 
>>>> and filter stuff and fence off their customers (in both directions).
>>>>
>>>> Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
>>>> for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.
>>>
>>>Hasn't this already hapened, pretty much? Most people with the pile 'em
>>>high likes of Virgin, Orange, TalkTalk, and the rest with the small
>>>specialists?
>>>
>>>Anyway, if port 25 gets blocked, use port 465, or 587 to your own mail
>>>forwarding server. Afer all, trying to send directly over port 25 from a
>>>consumer ADSL address isn't entirely reliable, as many are marked as
>>>dynamic, or suchlike, in spam lists.
>>
>> My mailserver is about 6" from my knee as I type.  I have a static IP
>> and a PTR record, and all my mail goes from here.
>
>And your point was?

That I don't use an ISP to send my email.  And, as long as it's possible
not to, I won't.  And if my ISP signs up for this crazed notion, time
for a new ISP.
-- 
Marc

Books breed like rabbits, bookcases breed like elephants (NancyButton)

Marc Wilson  writes:

> In uk.misc,  (August West) wrote in ::
>
>>Marc Wilson  writes:
>>
>>> In uk.misc,  (August West) wrote in ::
>>>
>>>>Anyway, if port 25 gets blocked, use port 465, or 587 to your own mail
>>>>forwarding server. Afer all, trying to send directly over port 25 from a
>>>>consumer ADSL address isn't entirely reliable, as many are marked as
>>>>dynamic, or suchlike, in spam lists.
>>>
>>> My mailserver is about 6" from my knee as I type.  I have a static IP
>>> and a PTR record, and all my mail goes from here.
>>
>>And your point was?
>>
> That I don't use an ISP to send my email.

I don't, either, nor was I advocating such a policy.

> And, as long as it's possible not to, I won't.  And if my ISP signs up
> for this crazed notion, time for a new ISP.

Ditto. Which is why I was suggesting methods of avoiding it, should one
get stuck behing such a demented ISP; or one that tags its ADSL address
blocks as dynamic, for that matter.

-- 
patterns in the rain

On 2008-06-28, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
>> > for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.
>> 
>> I actually think this is a Good Idea.
>
> I wonder who the specialist ISPs would be? I suppose Gradwell might make
> a stab at it, they seem to be closer to the original Demon philosophy at
> the moment that anyone else.

A&A?


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:14:20 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
>>> for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.
>> 
>> I actually think this is a Good Idea.
> 
> I wonder who the specialist ISPs would be? I suppose Gradwell might make
> a stab at it, they seem to be closer to the original Demon philosophy at
> the moment that anyone else.

Zen seem to have a pretty close proximity to The Clue.


-- 
The grass is brown on both sides of the fence.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:30:13 +0100, August West wrote:

> Marc Wilson  writes:
> 
>> That I don't use an ISP to send my email.
> 
> I don't, either, nor was I advocating such a policy.

Is this a practical or philosophical objection?

I've got two ISP-provided SMTP servers configgered in my email
client, main and alternate.  They get the job done.  Neither ISP
is my "actual" ISP, IYSWIM.

I've got postfix on "my" server for incoming on one of my domains;
I guess I will set up outgoing email soon as well.

If you really *must* send your own email, then you may as well rent a
bit of data centre to do it from - slicehost.com does a cheapie VPS
at twenty USD / month.

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-06-28, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> > Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
> >> > for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.
> >> 
> >> I actually think this is a Good Idea.
> >
> > I wonder who the specialist ISPs would be? I suppose Gradwell might make
> > a stab at it, they seem to be closer to the original Demon philosophy at
> > the moment that anyone else.
> 
> A&A?

Not while they have that arsehole at the helm.

In message <vxI9k.17642$E41.15673@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Fevric J 
Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:30:13 +0100, August West wrote:
>
>> Marc Wilson  writes:
>>
>>> That I don't use an ISP to send my email.
>>
>> I don't, either, nor was I advocating such a policy.
>
>Is this a practical or philosophical objection?

I can't speak for August, but it can be a bit of both.

Having full access to the logs that say "I contacted your mail server on 
XXth May 2008 at YY:ZZ, and it was rejected" can be useful if you need 
to argue with another company over whether you sent something or not.

-- 
The Massive Continuity of Ducks

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:14:20 +0100, I waved a wand and this message
magically appears in front of Steve Firth:

> I wonder who the specialist ISPs would be? I suppose Gradwell might
> make a stab at it, they seem to be closer to the original Demon
> philosophy at the moment that anyone else.

THey do bundle ADSL but only for business customers. 50 quid a month is
a bit expensive though. 
-- 
http://www.munted.org.uk

Fearsome grindings.

On 2008-06-29, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-06-28, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
>> >> > for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.
>> >> 
>> >> I actually think this is a Good Idea.
>> >
>> > I wonder who the specialist ISPs would be? I suppose Gradwell might make
>> > a stab at it, they seem to be closer to the original Demon philosophy at
>> > the moment that anyone else.
>> 
>> A&A?
>
> Not while they have that arsehole at the helm.

Do elaborate. By emnail, if you wish.

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

In uk.misc,  (Fevric J Glandules) wrote in
<vxI9k.17642$E41.15673@text.news.virginmedia.com>::

>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:30:13 +0100, August West wrote:
>
>> Marc Wilson  writes:
>> 
>>> That I don't use an ISP to send my email.
>> 
>> I don't, either, nor was I advocating such a policy.
>
>Is this a practical or philosophical objection?
>
>I've got two ISP-provided SMTP servers configgered in my email
>client, main and alternate.  They get the job done.  Neither ISP
>is my "actual" ISP, IYSWIM.
>
>I've got postfix on "my" server for incoming on one of my domains;
>I guess I will set up outgoing email soon as well.
>
>If you really *must* send your own email, then you may as well rent a
>bit of data centre to do it from - slicehost.com does a cheapie VPS
>at twenty USD / month.

Twenty bucks more than I'm spending now.
-- 
Marc

 'Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of'   (Steven Wright)

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-06-29, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2008-06-28, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Nerds, geeks, and interweb pros will have to go to specialist ISPs
> >> >> > for actual real genuine Internet Service Provision.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I actually think this is a Good Idea.
> >> >
> >> > I wonder who the specialist ISPs would be? I suppose Gradwell might make
> >> > a stab at it, they seem to be closer to the original Demon philosophy at
> >> > the moment that anyone else.
> >> 
> >> A&A?
> >
> > Not while they have that arsehole at the helm.
> 
> Do elaborate. By emnail, if you wish.

The "Reverend" Adrian Kennard. There's a thumbnail photo of the tit
here:

http://aa.nu/sms.html

He attracted my wrath when A&A refused to provide its own forum for
support[1], but expected the UK Usenet community to fall over and do it
for them. A&A wanted a newsgroup which they would use to post service
issues, outage reports, and some user support. All stuff that other ISPs
manage in-house.

They mounted a campaign among their subscribers to stuff the ballot box
to get uk.net.providers.aaisp created, at that time the only newsgroup
dedicated to providing support for a single ISP.

Kentard was most insistent that A&A would not provide their own support
nor put anything back in return for the newsgroup creation. Grab, grab,
take, take.


[1] well, for that and for being a fucktard in general.

Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:

> If you really *must* send your own email, then you may as well rent a
> bit of data centre to do it from - slicehost.com does a cheapie VPS
> at twenty USD / month.

Er, I do.

-- 
Black is forever, mascara tears

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:36:25 +0100, August West wrote:

And then I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like

> Er, I do.

NB: I have no idea what this subthread is about.


-- 
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:36:25 +0100, August West wrote:

> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
> 
>> If you really *must* send your own email, then you may as well rent a
>> bit of data centre to do it from - slicehost.com does a cheapie VPS
>> at twenty USD / month.
> 
> Er, I do.

Yeah?  What's it like?

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:36:25 +0100, August West wrote:
>
>> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> If you really *must* send your own email, then you may as well rent a
>>> bit of data centre to do it from - slicehost.com does a cheapie VPS
>>> at twenty USD / month.
>> 
>> Er, I do.
>
> Yeah?  What's it like?

Piece of piss, mate.
Not from slicehost.com, mind you. Just 9 hops from home, too.

-- 
telling tales of drunkenness and cruelty

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:39:55 +0100, August West wrote:

> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:36:25 +0100, August West wrote:
>>
>>> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> 
>>>> If you really *must* send your own email, then you may as well rent a
>>>> bit of data centre to do it from - slicehost.com does a cheapie VPS
>>>> at twenty USD / month.
>>> 
>>> Er, I do.
>>
>> Yeah?  What's it like?
> 
> Piece of piss, mate.
> Not from slicehost.com, mind you. Just 9 hops from home, too.

I *was* asking about slicehost.com.

I've got a REAL NO PLASTIC server in that terminal there --> but
it's always good to know what the options are.

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:39:55 +0100, August West wrote:
>
>> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:36:25 +0100, August West wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> If you really *must* send your own email, then you may as well rent a
>>>>> bit of data centre to do it from - slicehost.com does a cheapie VPS
>>>>> at twenty USD / month.
>>>> 
>>>> Er, I do.
>>>
>>> Yeah?  What's it like?
>> 
>> Piece of piss, mate.
>> Not from slicehost.com, mind you. Just 9 hops from home, too.
>
> I *was* asking about slicehost.com.

Not terribly speifically.

> I've got a REAL NO PLASTIC server in that terminal there --> but
> it's always good to know what the options are.

I think I'd want one on this side of the big pond, myself.

-- 
if there's anything you don't understand, please regard it as significant

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:39:13 +0100, August West wrote:

> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
> 
>> I *was* asking about slicehost.com.
> 
> Not terribly speifically.

Sorry.  Mindless literalism strikes again.  I thought "I do" 
referred to slicehost.com.

>> I've got a REAL NO PLASTIC server in that terminal there --> but
>> it's always good to know what the options are.
> 
> I think I'd want one on this side of the big pond, myself.

Wot?  A virtual server or a real one?

In any case you're sorted, right?

(FWIW: "my" servers are all this side of the pond these days).

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

LO, LX.  I was wondering where you were.




-- 
Grk.