On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 11:19 AM Matthew Walster
wrote:
> You still have all the same IPv4 addressing problems, you've just shifted
> a portion (bulk, even) of the traffic onto IPv6. IPv4 CGNAT at large scale
> is getting ridiculously cheap to do, so it's incredibly unlikely that any
> "big" ISP
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:33 PM Matthew Park wrote:
> Fire confirmed in Newcastle via our BTW ticket
>
> [massive signatures snipped]
Good grief, these email signatures are getting *outrageous*!
-n
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 2:41 PM Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Anyone who wants to turn off IPV4 in their own world can do it now - so JFDI
> Paul, nobody is stopping anyone, but I'll thank you to fuck off if you think
> I'll let folks dictate how things should be for others when their own ability
> to
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:43 PM Paul Mansfield
wrote:
> I'm happy to sell the use of 100.64.44.0/23 at £10/ipv4 address. Just let me
> know whom to invoice.
Now *that's* mean.
-n
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 9:13 PM Ray Bellis wrote:
> [stuff from the other place]
wrong list.
-n
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:34 AM Richard Smith wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Am trying to reach someone in GTT NOC. Tried emailing i...@gtt.net but their
> mail server seems to be bouncing messages... with and SMTP 550
>
> I call GTT NOC... and get through to an entertaining soul who instructs me to
> em
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:59 AM Per Bilse wrote:
> Best open source: GNU. And BSD. Been using them for decades.
GNU isn't Open Source, it's Free Software, as the FSF will
delightfully hassle you about, at length, whether you want to be
hassled or not.
-n
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:12 AM Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
>
> Anyone here from three?
>
> Network has been down for well over 5 hours - nothing on social media and
> website has had something added about maintenance on the website? 3G came
> back for like 10 seconds then died again - 4G isn’t work
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 4:48 PM Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Where do you live Paul?
Is Neil about to send the boys around? :)
-n
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 3:40 PM Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Domain names are cheaper than lawyer time.
I'd suggest, given the increased number of gTLDs, and "premium
domains", that this is no longer the case. Unless you have a really
cheap solicitor.
-n
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:07 PM Hal Ponton wrote:
>
> Hey All,
>
> Does anyone know if Three have a wholesale team anymore. They still have
> a link of their website for wholesale.three.co.uk but it's dead.
http://web.archive.org/web/20180407181054/http://wholesale.three.co.uk/
-n
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:32 AM Paul Mansfield
wrote:
> why are you using 1900's technology - analogue PSTN services, when you
> could be using 1990's VOIP/SIP technology?
Apply water to burned area.
-n
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Gavin Henry wrote:
>> Get in touch with your customer, ask them to stop it, and get back to
>> Paramount and inform them of the same.
>
> Thanks. That's the least we'll do. Their business connection could
> have been compromised and they're unaware. We'll see.
If
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Mike Hughes wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> If anyone from Three is listening...
>
> When one has no data allowance left, it's hellish to top-up because the
> top-up page is trying to pull some sort of asset which is being blocked
> because one is out of credit.
>
> As a
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Scott Armitage wrote:
> [snip]
> * Whilst blocking TPB does prevent users from access the torrent tracker
> files it doesn't prevent the act of using bit torrent.
With the caveat that TPB no longer hosts .torrent files, nor does it
operate a tracker. It's now me
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Paul Cairney
wrote:
> (Please excuse the From: line, the folowing diartibe is mostly my personal
> oppinion)
>
>
> If only there was some sort of legal entity who could lobby on behalf of the
> views that consensous of this list has concluded to be a sane reaction
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> point 1 exists in bottom posting also! I agree on HTML/Rich emails.
Well, as you can see, this reply is both smaller than my original mail
*and* your subsequent reply. Bottom posting plus trimming equals
efficient mail winnage!
-n
(Sorry Graeme, stupid reply-to-sender rather than reply-to-list ...
now *there's* an argument)
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Graeme Fowler wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Those of us familiar with service desk software implementations grind
> our teeth on a daily basis as email clients insist on posting t
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Mangin
wrote:
>> IAABP (I Am A Bottom Poster - is this internet standard not applied on UKNOF?
>
> Assuming you are not trying to start a flamewar (hence why I am bottom
> posting), Modern clients organising mails by discussion/thread and hiding the
> part
19 matches
Mail list logo
