If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
In message , David E. Ross
writes: On 10/9/2018 2:13 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] If your ISP will let you _send_ emails with a From: that has nothing to do with that ISP, then indeed you don't need an _outgoing_ mail server. You still need an _incoming_ one (though many domain-registering companies will provide that, often with autoforwarding too). Your ISP cannot, I think, provide that unless they're also handling your domain registration, as _incoming_ mail won't come anywhere near them. I disagree. My Internet connection is through Spectrum, which also provides cable TV service in my community. When it was Time Warner Cable before the merger, they insisted I use their domain in my E-mail address. For that For _outgoing_ emails. And incoming ones if you wanted those emails to come via them. reason, I subscribed to E-mail and Web hosting from Sunset.net at http://sunset.net/index.html, which does not impose such a limitation. (I do still have such an E-mail address with a roadrunner.com domain, which I only use as a backup for sending messages on the rare occasion when Sunset.net goes down.) For _incoming_ emails, what is the format of your address - does it end in @yourdomain.*? If so, it must come via Sunset. Not your ISP (Spectrum). If someone emails @yourdomian, "the internet" does not know to send it to Spectrum. So you are using the _incoming_ email server (POP or IMAP) at Sunset. For outgoing (SMTP), you could be using a server at either, assuming Spectrum have one and allow you to use a non-Spectrum From: address. When the original registry for my domain decided to concentrate on Web development and stopped being a registry, I started using Omnis Network at http://www.omnis.com/, which I still use for my annual domain renewal. Thus, I have one ISP for a broadband connection to the Internet and an unrelated ISP for hosting my E-mail and Web site. I also have a third unrelated company for registering my domain. I noticed that I might save some money by using Omnis Network in place of Sunset.net for hosting my E-mail and Web site. I might explore that. Yes, many registrars (I think most) offer email and web hosting, often thrown in with the registration (mine, tsohost, do, for their smallest offering, which is far bigger than I need for my website anyway; it includes forwarding, so I have the email forwarded to the email address my connection provider [PlusNet] provide, with no-one else needing to know that address). Such combinations of email/webhost with registration are often cheaper than doing email/webhost with one and registration with another - as well as less hassle of only having to pay one of them. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Everyone looks sun-kissed and beautiful and as you watch it ["Bondi Rescue"], pale and flabby on your sofa, you find yourself wondering if your life could ever be that exotic. (It couldn't. You're British.) - Russell Howard, in Radio Times, 20-26 April 2013 |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| reason, I subscribed to E-mail and Web hosting from Sunset.net at | http://sunset.net/index.html, which does not impose such a limitation. | (I do still have such an E-mail address with a roadrunner.com domain, | which I only use as a backup for sending messages on the rare occasion | when Sunset.net goes down.) | | For _incoming_ emails, what is the format of your address - does it end | in @yourdomain.*? If so, it must come via Sunset. Not your ISP | (Spectrum). I think that's what he's saying. It's confusing because he was calling Sunset an ISP when it's actually a web host. I do similar. I have a domain and pay $9/montrh for very dependable hosting, which includes something like 100 email addresses if I want them. I use several. I think it's sad that more people don't understand how to do that. In the early days you could host your own server over an Internet connection. You can still, fairly easily, run your own domain. But most people now just see the Internet as a service "out there", rather than something the can take part in. There's a big caveat, though: Webhosts vary about how they handle email and they don't always make it clear upfront. I once set someone up with NetSol as a webhost, figuring the extra cost would be justified by smooth operation. It turned out NetSol didn't even have domain email service! But they were cagey about it, so that I didn't understand the deal until after I'd set it up. Anyone who gets a webhost needs to make sure of what they're getting. I doubt you'll get mail through a budget operation like GoDaddy, for instance. They're for small businesses with sites that no one visits, who don't know enough to be embarassed having written across the back of their SUV. At the other end of the spectrum are hosts with inexplicably high prices - like $80-100/month. Then there's the new-ish fake hosting. Stuff like Wix, where you buy a domain, darg-drop a site for yourself at Wix, then the whole thing is hosted through their server. It's pure javascript and you have no direct control over anything. Your own domain url is just redirected to Wix. I doubt they offer email or even server access. Again, they're for people who don't know any better and don't understand that their visitors may not see the same page they see. Decent hosting will usually cost around $10/month. Personally I'd highly recommend futurequest.net, where I've been hosting for several years. It's a relatively small company. Personal service. Dependable. And real webhosting for reasonable prices. A dedicated PC and dedicated IP for $9/month. I'm sure there are other good hosts. I just don't have experience with others that I know enough about to recommend. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
On 10/10/2018 12:52 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote [in part]:
In message ,I also wrote in part: My Internet connection is through Spectrum, which also provides cable TV service in my community. When it was Time Warner Cable before the merger, they insisted I use their domain in my E-mail address. For that For _outgoing_ emails. And incoming ones if you wanted those emails to come via them. That is because of how Time Warner operated. It is not a result of any limitation in my Thunderbird E-mail client or in the POP3/SMTP definitions. I have not checked to see if Spectrum still enforces this restriction. reason, I subscribed to E-mail and Web hosting from Sunset.net at http://sunset.net/index.html, which does not impose such a limitation. (I do still have such an E-mail address with a roadrunner.com domain, which I only use as a backup for sending messages on the rare occasion when Sunset.net goes down.) For _incoming_ emails, what is the format of your address - does it end in @yourdomain.*? If so, it must come via Sunset. Not your ISP (Spectrum). If someone emails @yourdomian, "the internet" does not know to send it to Spectrum. So you are using the _incoming_ email server (POP or IMAP) at Sunset. For outgoing (SMTP), you could be using a server at either, assuming Spectrum have one and allow you to use a non-Spectrum From: address. Both outgoing and incoming E-mail messages, I use the same E-mail address. The address uses my rossde.com domain. Actually, I have four E-mail addresses, all using the rossde.com domain. Three of them get routed to my computer because I setup Thunderbird to access those addresses. The fourth one gets routed to my wife's computer, again because I setup Thunderbird on her computer to access that address. I can tell from the header sections in the message sources that all these messages indeed come through Sunset.net's POP3 server. Furthermore, I also see a connection to Sunset.net's SMTP server when I send E-mail. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com Too often, Twitter is a source of verbal vomit. Examples include Donald Trump, Roseanne Barr, and Elon Musk. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
On 10/10/2018 6:14 AM, Mayayana wrote [in part]:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote I think that's what he's saying. It's confusing because he was calling Sunset an ISP when it's actually a web host. Sunset.net is actually an ISP within its locale. When I first subscribed to it, I could have had a dial-up Internet connection directly through Sunset.net. However, I wanted a broad-band connection, which was available through Time Warner Cable (now Spectrum) or AT&T. Time Warner Cable offered a better deal (speed and cost) than AT&T, so that is what I have. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com Too often, Twitter is a source of verbal vomit. Examples include Donald Trump, Roseanne Barr, and Elon Musk. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
In message , David E. Ross
writes: On 10/10/2018 6:14 AM, Mayayana wrote [in part]: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote I think that's what he's saying. It's confusing because he was calling Sunset an ISP when it's actually a web host. I didn't actually write the above words, though it doesn't matter to this discussion. (Counting ""s would show, but it's not obvious. [DER didn't snip the "JPG wrote" line as he should have.]) Sunset.net is actually an ISP within its locale. When I first subscribed to it, I could have had a dial-up Internet connection directly through Sunset.net. However, I wanted a broad-band connection, which was available through Time Warner Cable (now Spectrum) or AT&T. Time Warner Cable offered a better deal (speed and cost) than AT&T, so that is what I have. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...n=gHafDVBYobum elL9J54c (Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public opinion.) "Address the chair!" "There isn't a chair, there's only a rock!" "Well, call it a chair!" "Why not call it a rock?" (First series, fit the sixth.) |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
On 09 Oct 2018, VanguardLH wrote in
alt.windows7.general: "hatethem" (looks like a nymshifter) wrote: "hatethem" changes nyms with every topic they start. You can also recognize them because they often embed a question that could easily be figured out on their own in a silly rant. Also, they rarely provide information even when it's requested, and they usually provide no followup. Other of their dozens on nyms in the past few months: AIOE aioeuse "aioeuse aiole OMG Oskar PosErr puppylove Ralph Remotely UG Me Measure winuser |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
On 10/8/2018 6:40 PM, hatethem wrote:
Same computer and with Thunderbird containing previous eMails for all GMAIL acounts.Â* Several.. Started computer and GOOGLE says it is a different computer.Â* NO IT IS NOT.Â* No changed mad to this computer.Â* Just been off for a while. Same damn computer ! Now it wants to VERIFY by collecting my phone number to send a text to. Google Ass Holes !!!!!! Is there any way around this total CRAP ! May just quit damn GMAIL and do all on Outlook ! My accounts work on other PCs but where I am at this time is the one I have to work with. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus GOOGLE loads computers with malware! well- probably spy-ware. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
hello hate them, me too. They are thieves.
Google is the worst thief on the internet. Its fact. Just read how many law suits are against them in the world/ and then maybe, it will make up your mind for you/ On 10/8/2018 4:40 PM, hatethem scribbled: Same computer and with Thunderbird containing previous eMails for all GMAIL acounts. Several.. Started computer and GOOGLE says it is a different computer. NO IT IS NOT. No changed mad to this computer. Just been off for a while. Same damn computer ! Now it wants to VERIFY by collecting my phone number to send a text to. Google Ass Holes !!!!!! Is there any way around this total CRAP ! May just quit damn GMAIL and do all on Outlook ! My accounts work on other PCs but where I am at this time is the one I have to work with. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
tesla sTinker wrote:
... Just read how many law suits are against them in the world/ and then maybe, it will make up your mind for you/ But lawyers will sue for just about anything. You have to consider the merits of the lawsuits before drawing a conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung Paul |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
On 11/22/2018 11:12 PM, Paul wrote:
tesla sTinker wrote: ... Just read how many law suits are against them in the world/ and then maybe, it will make up your mind for you/ But lawyers will sue for just about anything. You have to consider the merits of the lawsuits before drawing a conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung Paul The problem with many proposals for tort reform is that they tend to insulate corporations from customers when the corporations really do something bad. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/. The only reason we have so many laws is that not enough people will do the right thing. (© 1997 by David Ross) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:33:07 -0800, David E. Ross wrote:
On 11/22/2018 11:12 PM, Paul wrote: [quoted text muted] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung Paul The problem with many proposals for tort reform is that they tend to insulate corporations from customers when the corporations really do something bad. I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that lobbyists write laws to favor their clients rather than the little guy! -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
Stan Brown wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:33:07 -0800, David E. Ross wrote: On 11/22/2018 11:12 PM, Paul wrote: [quoted text muted] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung Paul The problem with many proposals for tort reform is that they tend to insulate corporations from customers when the corporations really do something bad. I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that lobbyists write laws to favor their clients rather than the little guy! LOL. I doubt if the OP (not quoted here) is old enough to get that funny quote. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
In message , Bill in Co
writes: Stan Brown wrote: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:33:07 -0800, David E. Ross wrote: On 11/22/2018 11:12 PM, Paul wrote: [quoted text muted] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung Paul The problem with many proposals for tort reform is that they tend to insulate corporations from customers when the corporations really do something bad. I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that lobbyists write laws to favor their clients rather than the little guy! LOL. I doubt if the OP (not quoted here) is old enough to get that funny quote. Indeed. I recognised it as a reference, but have just had to think a bit to remember where from, but I remembered eventually, which is reassuring. ("Your winnings, sir.") I wonder - yes, found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Have you ever heard about a petition, disagreed with it, but been frustrated that there's no way you can *show* that you disagree? If so, have a look at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 - and please pass it on if you agree, especially to twitter, facebook, gransnet/mumsnet, or any such forum. 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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 04:32:07 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Indeed. I recognised it as a reference, but have just had to think a bit to remember where from, but I remembered eventually, which is reassuring. ("Your winnings, sir.") I wonder - yes, found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME That movie is, IMHO, one of the major arguments against relying exclusively on streaming. I have the DVD and have watched it probably ten times in the last fifteen years. Every time I see something new. It blows my mind that the people involved had no idea they were doing something special -- to them it was just that week's product. By the way, there's an excellent book, /Round up the Usual Suspects/, about the making of the movie. Frex, Bergman didn't know when she recorded her last big scene whether her character would end up with Rick or Victor Laszlo; that's why she played it to allow either ending. And in case anyone doesn't know, the film is /Casablanca/. If you haven't seen it, do so tonight. (I still remember seeing it for the first time, on a double bill with /The Maltese Falcon/. It doesn't get better than that.) -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Hate Them
In message , Stan Brown
writes: On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 04:32:07 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: Indeed. I recognised it as a reference, but have just had to think a bit to remember where from, but I remembered eventually, which is reassuring. ("Your winnings, sir.") I wonder - yes, found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME That movie is, IMHO, one of the major arguments against relying exclusively on streaming. I have the DVD and have watched it probably ten times in the last fifteen years. Every time I see something new. It blows my mind that the people involved had no idea they were doing something special -- to them it was just that week's product. Weeell ... I think _some_ of them knew it was pro-war (oversimplifying - but in favour of America getting involved, which I think it hadn't decided to be at that point). But yes, some of them would indeed have jut been doing this week's job. (And some of them - such as the lighting cameraman - doing it excellently, to the extent of it not having been bettered since.) By the way, there's an excellent book, /Round up the Usual Suspects/, about the making of the movie. Frex, Bergman didn't know when she recorded her last big scene whether her character would end up with Rick or Victor Laszlo; that's why she played it to allow either ending. And in case anyone doesn't know, the film is /Casablanca/. If you haven't seen it, do so tonight. (I still remember seeing it for the first time, on a double bill with /The Maltese Falcon/. It doesn't get better than that.) I saw, I think it was, a fiftieth anniversary showing, at the Empire, Leicester Square. The projectionist let the film flap through to the end; it (not because of that) got a standing ovation, which felt rather surreal. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Have you ever heard about a petition, disagreed with it, but been frustrated that there's no way you can *show* that you disagree? If so, have a look at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 - and please pass it on if you agree, especially to twitter, facebook, gransnet/mumsnet, or any such forum. No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway. - Penny Mayes, UMRA, 2014-August |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|