Hi Joseph,
> 'Traffic Usage' has shot up to 201MB and 360MB.
> The host so far have not taken my point and say it
> is simply a change in the recording method (to
> include ftp as I understand it).
I think what's happened is that your host used to measure traffic by the
amount of data being serve
At 01:55 AM 06/04/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Hi Joseph,
> 'Traffic Usage' has shot up to 201MB and 360MB.
> The host so far have not taken my point and say it
> is simply a change in the recording method (to
> include ftp as I understand it).
I think what's happened is that your host used to measure t
Jon and Tom,
Yes, I follow that point and it seems very fair.But I have done very
little FTP work recently. I change one page with the current ezine two or
three times a month, and maybe a little other when I remember, which has
maybe been two or three times in the two months.
The pages are
Hi Joseph,
> But I have done very little FTP work recently. I find it difficult
> to believe that the difference in their new way of measuring
> reflects that FTP work. That is why, if there is a way for it to
> happen, I wonder if there is some unauthorised usage of my bandwidth.
Well, there are
Jon Haworth wrote:
>Another possibility is that you've accidentally uploaded a huge image
> without compressing it first (e.g. you put the 2048x1024 tif version of
your
> logo up instead of the small jpg),
Thank goodness I'm past those errors (but now tempting fate!!).
> Have you got access to t
