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 syntax was
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com 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.
In article 201010190123.o9j1njra013...@mail.r-bonomi.com, Robert
Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com 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
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
held
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
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 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,
Nathan
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 Sun,
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 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 names in
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 ATT 3B5) which
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
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 j...@nethead.com
To: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
Cc: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
That's
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:33:13 -0700
From: Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
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.com is hard to type...
Like
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 daydo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
network. I am thinking of using
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 08:07:41AM +0200, Per Carlson wrote:
On 17 Oct 2010 06:47, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com 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?
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 Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com 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
On Oct 17, 2010, at 7:16 PM, James Hess wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com 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
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 daydo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit
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 ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.,
bmann...@vacation.kar
oshi.com writes:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at
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?
On Saturday night, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com 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
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote:
On Saturday night, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com 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,
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 daydo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com 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 daydo...@gmail.com
26 matches
Mail list logo
