UKVoIPTalk.com

"Al" <.@_.invalid> wrote in message
news:47k2g2p63ht626uhp07fsfcj9nnis4pfqc@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:34:38 GMT, Jono wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>I suppose, you shouldn't use a domain that may at some point be allocated
>>as
>>you could be storing up problems for the ultimate registrant.........[/color]
>
> Indeed, it can cause problems to the ultimate registrant when you
> illegally use a domain like say ...nothanksneverblueyonder.com
>
> lookup failed nothanksneverblueyonder.com
> Could not find an IP address for this domain name.
>
> Instead of storing up trouble for the ultimate registrant, why not use
> the allowable construct of:
>
> nothanksneverblueyonder.invalid
> ?[/color]

Well. Firstly, what are the chances that anyone would want "redyonder".
Don't forget the phrase is "... into the wild blue yonder." The colour red
doesn't come into it and would make no sense whatsoever :-)

Secondly, I don't quite understand your so-called "allowable construct" ? Do
you mean something like "blueyonder.invalid.co.uk"? If so, then I'm sure
that any respectable spammer might look for and remove stuff like the word
"invalid" in the same way as the earlier-mentioned "removethis".

I think I'll stick with what I have thanks. It's worked so far :-)

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide: [url]http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495[/url]
DGLite: [url]http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495[/url] - FREE!!!

"Jono" <jono@NoThanksNeverBlueYonder.com> wrote in message
news:2HbMg.15695$r61.10769@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk

[snip]
[color=blue]
> I suppose, you shouldn't use a domain that may at some
> point be allocated as you could be storing up problems
> for the ultimate registrant.........[/color]

There is a specific top level domain reserved for the purposes of spam
trapping - invalid - try it.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:[color=blue]
> "Jono" <jono@NoThanksNeverBlueYonder.com> wrote in message
> news:2HbMg.15695$r61.10769@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>
> [snip]
>[color=green]
>> I suppose, you shouldn't use a domain that may at some
>> point be allocated as you could be storing up problems
>> for the ultimate registrant.........[/color]
>
> There is a specific top level domain reserved for the purposes of spam
> trapping - invalid - try it.
>
> Ivor[/color]

That being the case, I certainly *won't* be using it. If spammers know about
it, it's a fair bet they can easily circumvent it :-)

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide: [url]http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495[/url]
DGLite: [url]http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495[/url] - FREE!!!

"Carl Waring" <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:HEeMg.15786$r61.12868@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk[color=blue]
> Ivor Jones wrote:[/color]

[snip]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > There is a specific top level domain reserved for the
> > purposes of spam trapping - invalid - try it.
> >
> > Ivor[/color]
>
> That being the case, I certainly *won't* be using it. If
> spammers know about it, it's a fair bet they can easily
> circumvent it :-)[/color]

No, because DNS servers have no way of routing to it.

Ivor

Ivor Jones expressed precisely :[color=blue]
> "Carl Waring" <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> news:HEeMg.15786$r61.12868@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk[color=green]
>> Ivor Jones wrote:[/color]
>
> [snip]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > There is a specific top level domain reserved for the
>> > purposes of spam trapping - invalid - try it.
>> >
>> > Ivor[/color]
>>
>> That being the case, I certainly *won't* be using it. If
>> spammers know about it, it's a fair bet they can easily
>> circumvent it :-)[/color]
>
> No, because DNS servers have no way of routing to it.[/color]

I think his point is, if you use .invald, what's to stop a spammer
rewriting all its havested .invalid addresses as .co.uk &/or .com.

The whole point of his REDyonder address is that a person could make a
judgement & figure out that it's BLUE not RED.

On 2006-09-08, Jono <jono@NoThanksNeverBlueYonder.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "Carl Waring" <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:yubMg.15687$r61.1795@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> [I see your're still irresponsibly using a domain in your From: header
>>>> you have no right to use.]
>>>>
>>>> On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> Result of WHOIS query:
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> No match for "redyonder.co.uk".
>>>
>>> This domain name has not been registered.
>>>
>>> WHOIS lookup made at 11:13:59 08-Sep-2006[/color]
>>
>> It's called a SPAMTRAP :-)[/color]
>
> I know.[/color]

Arranging for spam to be delivered to a machine other than one you have
permission to use is a SPAMTRAP? The person receiving it might have
another name for it.
[color=blue]
> I was querying Brian's objection to your use of it.
>
> I suppose, you shouldn't use a domain that may at some point be allocated as
> you could be storing up problems for the ultimate registrant.........[/color]

He does not control the redyonder domain, whether it exists or not. He
does not have permission to use it. It follows that neither he nor
anyone else has the right to direct unwanted mail there.

10 minutes ago the telephone number 02070997992 was unallocated to
anyone. Does that mean it is free for me to use?

Brian.

On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Jono wrote:[color=green]
>> "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:edreba$fm2$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...[color=darkred]
>>> [I see your're still irresponsibly using a domain in your From: header
>>> you have no right to use.]
>>>
>>> On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:[/color]
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> Result of WHOIS query:
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> No match for "redyonder.co.uk".
>>
>> This domain name has not been registered.
>>
>> WHOIS lookup made at 11:13:59 08-Sep-2006[/color]
>
> It's called a SPAMTRAP :-)[/color]

No, it's called abuse of the internet.

Brian.

On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Jono wrote:[color=green]
>> I suppose, you shouldn't use a domain that may at some point be
>> allocated as you could be storing up problems for the ultimate
>> registrant.........[/color]
> Possibly. However, I'm sure that "REMOVETHIS", etc. can be easily got around
> by now :-)[/color]

Having acknowledged you may impact on someone else's use of the internet
why continue with the practice?

Brian.

On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Al" <.@_.invalid> wrote in message
> news:47k2g2p63ht626uhp07fsfcj9nnis4pfqc@4ax.com...[color=green]
>>
>> Instead of storing up trouble for the ultimate registrant, why not use
>> the allowable construct of:
>>
>> nothanksneverblueyonder.invalid
>> ?[/color]
>
> Well. Firstly, what are the chances that anyone would want "redyonder".[/color]

This is not for you to judge or make a decision on. If you have any real
doubts about this your ISP is the authority to consult.
[color=blue]
> Don't forget the phrase is "... into the wild blue yonder." The colour red
> doesn't come into it and would make no sense whatsoever :-)[/color]

Since when did domain names have to make sense, either in English or
another language? Did google make sense in 1996?
[color=blue]
> Secondly, I don't quite understand your so-called "allowable construct" ? Do
> you mean something like "blueyonder.invalid.co.uk"? If so, then I'm sure
> that any respectable spammer might look for and remove stuff like the word
> "invalid" in the same way as the earlier-mentioned "removethis".
>
> I think I'll stick with what I have thanks. It's worked so far :-)[/color]

By definition, sending spam elsewhere is bound to work and, furthermore,
work to your advantage. It doesn't work to the advantage of the person
on the receiving end though.

Brian.

Brian was thinking very hard :
[color=blue]
>
> 10 minutes ago the telephone number 02070997992 was unallocated to
> anyone. Does that mean it is free for me to use?[/color]

It would be pointless, though as no-one could actually guess the
correct number to reach you on.