On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Day Domes wrote:
> I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
> network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
> any issues with this?
Two helpful rules of thumb when picking a domain name:
1. Minimize spoken syl
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> > I'm assuming we aren't making jokes here, but 3com.com was created in
> > 1986:
>
> I'm confused. 3com.com would not appear to be entirely numerical. Or
> maybe someone spiked my coffee this morning.
Once leading digits became permitted, the synt
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 05:24:58PM +, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> > I'm assuming we aren't making jokes here, but 3com.com was created in
> > 1986:
>
> I'm confused. 3com.com would not appear to be entirely numerical. Or maybe
> someone spiked my coffee this morning.
>
> Best Regards,
> Nath
> I'm assuming we aren't making jokes here, but 3com.com was created in
> 1986:
I'm confused. 3com.com would not appear to be entirely numerical. Or maybe
someone spiked my coffee this morning.
Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> > In article <20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.?>,
> bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes
> >
> >> the leading character restriction was lifted when the company
> >> 3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that ad
On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.?>,
> bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes
>
>> the leading character restriction was lifted when the company
>> 3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice
>>
In article <20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.?>,
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes
the leading character restriction was lifted when the company
3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice
held true.
And was the first all-numeric name 101.com (
In article <201010190123.o9j1njra013...@mail.r-bonomi.com>, Robert
Bonomi writes
Not to mention the fact that the company was originally _named_
"Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing", and that '3M' was *just* a
logo and trademark.
I recall that in the UK, before Nominet deregulated the name space
> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:33:13 -0700
> From: Joel Jaeggli
> Subject: Re: network name 101100010100110.net
>
> On 10/17/10 8:24 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
> > That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988.
>
> and not just because minnestoaminingandmanufacturing.c
> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Sun Oct 17 22:23:13
> 2010
> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:24:30 -0700
> Subject: Re: network name 101100010100110.net
> From: Joe Hamelin
> To: Mark Andrews
> Cc: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
>
&g
Day,
> does anyone see any issues with this?
Please, I strongly urge you to consider the ergonomics in question.
That name is REALLY hard to read, spell, pronounce, type, recognize,
etc.
Agreed that there are no technical roadblocks, but again, please use
common sense and choose something that d
On October 17, 2010 at 20:24 j...@nethead.com (Joe Hamelin) wrote:
> That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988.
When BU joined the internet and promptly brought down about a third of
it with their host table entries one of the problems was a host named
3b (.bu.edu, it was an AT&T 3B5) which
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
> >
> > Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain
> > name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
RFC 821 defines the syntax for mail domains, not domain nam
Joel said: and not just because minnestoaminingandmanufacturing.com is
hard to type...
Also back then you could only have eight letters in your domain name.
But it was free and only took 6-8 weeks to get.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On 10/17/10 8:24 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
> That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988.
and not just because minnestoaminingandmanufacturing.com is hard to type...
they've since officially change the name of the company to 3m...
> --
> Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
>
>
>
> On
That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.>,
> bmann...@vacation.kar
> oshi.com writes:
>> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -
In message <20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.>, bmann...@vacation.kar
oshi.com writes:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes wrote:
> > > I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
> > >
On Oct 17, 2010, at 7:16 PM, James Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes wrote:
>> I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
>> network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
>> any issues with this?
>
> The domain-name star
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes wrote:
> > I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
> > network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
> > any issues with this?
>
> The do
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes wrote:
> I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
> network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
> any issues with this?
The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC 103
Matthew said: And imagine answering the phones...
Bender's Big Score.
Is this for Jewish Hospital (AS 22694)?
And many years ago I had jh.org, but domains were $70 back then and my
wife thought I had too many...
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 08:07:41AM +0200, Per Carlson wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2010 06:47, "Day Domes" wrote:
> > I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
> > network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
> > any issues with this?
>
> Technically, no.
Technically, no.
But you probably fancy annoying people. I wouldn't imaging anyone typing
that right on the first attempt.
On 17 Oct 2010 06:47, "Day Domes" wrote:
> I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
> network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
> 16 bit integers. Ok, a lame joke.
>
> 22694.NET and 58A6.NET are available. What are you trying to name?
>
>
> --
> Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Day Domes wrote:
>> unsigned?
>>
>> O
16 bit integers. Ok, a lame joke.
22694.NET and 58A6.NET are available. What are you trying to name?
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Day Domes wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
>> On Saturday night, Day Domes
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
> On Saturday night, Day Domes postulated:
>> I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
>> any issues with this?
>
>
> It's truly unsigned?
> (15 bit)
>
> --
> Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
>
unsigned?
On Saturday night, Day Domes postulated:
> I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
> any issues with this?
It's truly unsigned?
(15 bit)
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
any issues with this?
28 matches
Mail list logo
