• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Media Player 12 Very Hash Picture Quality

  • Thread starter Trimble Bracegirdle
  • Start date
G

Gene E. Bloch

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:01:21 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:51:37 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:56:12 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
>> <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:00:10 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:01:51 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
>>>> <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As you know and as you do, but Ken Blake does not do and might not know,
>>>>> the correct way to make an invalid domain is to let the top level domain
>>>>> (the part of the address after the last dot, such as com, net, or uk) be
>>>>> the string "invalid" (no quotes, of course), such as what I use,
>>>>> not-me@other.invalid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Granted that that's a good way to do it, but I don't agree that it's
>>>> the only "correct" way. Any invalid domain name is just as good.
>>>>
>>>> The only argument for your point of view that I can think of is that a
>>>> domain name like "this.is.invalid.com" might be invalid today, but
>>>> despite how unlikely it might be, someone could actually create such a
>>>> domain at some time in the future. And the top-level domain "invalid"
>>>> is not just an arbitrary invalid name, but one that has actually been
>>>> set up for that purpose.
>>>>
>>>> So using a top-level domain of "invalid" will guarantee that the
>>>> domain is invalid, while using one like "this.is.invalid.com" doesn't
>>>> provide the same level of guarantee. But for all intents and purposes,
>>>> the two will almost certainly turn out to be equally good.
>>>>
>>>> However, if you know something about it that I don't, I'll give you
>>>> opportunity to tell me why you think your way is better than mine, and
>>>> to try to convince me. I'd like to read why you feel the way about it
>>>> that you do.
>>>
>>> I think you provided the desired answer yourself :)
>>>
>>> I quote:
>>> "So using a top-level domain of "invalid" will guarantee that the
>>> domain is invalid, while using one like "this.is.invalid.com" doesn't
>>> provide the same level of guarantee."
>>
>>
>> No, not the same level, but so close as to make no real difference.
>
> No. I have seen a number of posts on Usenet telling various posters that
> their fake-seeming domains were actually valid domains.
>
> Don't ask - I haven't kept a record of them :)

OTOH, in this very thread, Char Jackson has pointed out one:
unknown.com. And he further pointed out to Dave that invalid is supposed
to be last in the domain name (i.e. it's the top-level domain).

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:04:59 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not-me@other.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:01:21 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:51:37 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:56:12 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
> >> <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:00:10 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:01:51 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
> >>>> <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> As you know and as you do, but Ken Blake does not do and might not know,
> >>>>> the correct way to make an invalid domain is to let the top level domain
> >>>>> (the part of the address after the last dot, such as com, net, or uk) be
> >>>>> the string "invalid" (no quotes, of course), such as what I use,
> >>>>> not-me@other.invalid.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Granted that that's a good way to do it, but I don't agree that it's
> >>>> the only "correct" way. Any invalid domain name is just as good.
> >>>>
> >>>> The only argument for your point of view that I can think of is that a
> >>>> domain name like "this.is.invalid.com" might be invalid today, but
> >>>> despite how unlikely it might be, someone could actually create such a
> >>>> domain at some time in the future. And the top-level domain "invalid"
> >>>> is not just an arbitrary invalid name, but one that has actually been
> >>>> set up for that purpose.
> >>>>
> >>>> So using a top-level domain of "invalid" will guarantee that the
> >>>> domain is invalid, while using one like "this.is.invalid.com" doesn't
> >>>> provide the same level of guarantee. But for all intents and purposes,
> >>>> the two will almost certainly turn out to be equally good.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, if you know something about it that I don't, I'll give you
> >>>> opportunity to tell me why you think your way is better than mine, and
> >>>> to try to convince me. I'd like to read why you feel the way about it
> >>>> that you do.
> >>>
> >>> I think you provided the desired answer yourself :)
> >>>
> >>> I quote:
> >>> "So using a top-level domain of "invalid" will guarantee that the
> >>> domain is invalid, while using one like "this.is.invalid.com" doesn't
> >>> provide the same level of guarantee."
> >>
> >>
> >> No, not the same level, but so close as to make no real difference.
> >
> > No. I have seen a number of posts on Usenet telling various posters that
> > their fake-seeming domains were actually valid domains.
> >
> > Don't ask - I haven't kept a record of them :)
>
> OTOH, in this very thread, Char Jackson has pointed out one:
> unknown.com. And he further pointed out to Dave that invalid is supposed
> to be last in the domain name (i.e. it's the top-level domain).


Your point is well understood, and what Char Jackson pointed out is
correct. But it's still hard for me to imagine that my domain
this.is.invalid.com could ever be a valid domain.
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:57:11 -0700, Ken Blake
<kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:04:59 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
><not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:01:21 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:51:37 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:56:12 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
>> >> <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:00:10 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:01:51 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
>> >>>> <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> As you know and as you do, but Ken Blake does not do and might not know,
>> >>>>> the correct way to make an invalid domain is to let the top level domain
>> >>>>> (the part of the address after the last dot, such as com, net, or uk) be
>> >>>>> the string "invalid" (no quotes, of course), such as what I use,
>> >>>>> not-me@other.invalid.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Granted that that's a good way to do it, but I don't agree that it's
>> >>>> the only "correct" way. Any invalid domain name is just as good.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The only argument for your point of view that I can think of is that a
>> >>>> domain name like "this.is.invalid.com" might be invalid today, but
>> >>>> despite how unlikely it might be, someone could actually create such a
>> >>>> domain at some time in the future. And the top-level domain "invalid"
>> >>>> is not just an arbitrary invalid name, but one that has actually been
>> >>>> set up for that purpose.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So using a top-level domain of "invalid" will guarantee that the
>> >>>> domain is invalid, while using one like "this.is.invalid.com" doesn't
>> >>>> provide the same level of guarantee. But for all intents and purposes,
>> >>>> the two will almost certainly turn out to be equally good.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> However, if you know something about it that I don't, I'll give you
>> >>>> opportunity to tell me why you think your way is better than mine, and
>> >>>> to try to convince me. I'd like to read why you feel the way about it
>> >>>> that you do.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think you provided the desired answer yourself :)
>> >>>
>> >>> I quote:
>> >>> "So using a top-level domain of "invalid" will guarantee that the
>> >>> domain is invalid, while using one like "this.is.invalid.com" doesn't
>> >>> provide the same level of guarantee."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, not the same level, but so close as to make no real difference.
>> >
>> > No. I have seen a number of posts on Usenet telling various posters that
>> > their fake-seeming domains were actually valid domains.
>> >
>> > Don't ask - I haven't kept a record of them :)
>>
>> OTOH, in this very thread, Char Jackson has pointed out one:
>> unknown.com. And he further pointed out to Dave that invalid is supposed
>> to be last in the domain name (i.e. it's the top-level domain).
>
>
>Your point is well understood, and what Char Jackson pointed out is
>correct. But it's still hard for me to imagine that my domain
>this.is.invalid.com could ever be a valid domain.

D:/>ping invalid.com

Pinging invalid.com [64.187.101.62] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 64.187.101.62:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 63ms, Maximum = 63ms, Average = 63ms

Hmmm, since invalid.com apparently exists, (I didn't check whois
records or anything, just this quick ping), it suddenly starts to seem
a little more feasible that this.is.invalid.com could come into being.
:)
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:14:43 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:57:11 -0700, Ken Blake
> <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:04:59 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
>><not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:01:21 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:51:37 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:56:12 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
>>> >> <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:00:10 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:01:51 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
>>> >>>> <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> As you know and as you do, but Ken Blake does not do and might not know,
>>> >>>>> the correct way to make an invalid domain is to let the top level domain
>>> >>>>> (the part of the address after the last dot, such as com, net, or uk) be
>>> >>>>> the string "invalid" (no quotes, of course), such as what I use,
>>> >>>>> not-me@other.invalid.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Granted that that's a good way to do it, but I don't agree that it's
>>> >>>> the only "correct" way. Any invalid domain name is just as good.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The only argument for your point of view that I can think of is that a
>>> >>>> domain name like "this.is.invalid.com" might be invalid today, but
>>> >>>> despite how unlikely it might be, someone could actually create such a
>>> >>>> domain at some time in the future. And the top-level domain "invalid"
>>> >>>> is not just an arbitrary invalid name, but one that has actually been
>>> >>>> set up for that purpose.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> So using a top-level domain of "invalid" will guarantee that the
>>> >>>> domain is invalid, while using one like "this.is.invalid.com" doesn't
>>> >>>> provide the same level of guarantee. But for all intents and purposes,
>>> >>>> the two will almost certainly turn out to be equally good.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> However, if you know something about it that I don't, I'll give you
>>> >>>> opportunity to tell me why you think your way is better than mine, and
>>> >>>> to try to convince me. I'd like to read why you feel the way about it
>>> >>>> that you do.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I think you provided the desired answer yourself :)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I quote:
>>> >>> "So using a top-level domain of "invalid" will guarantee that the
>>> >>> domain is invalid, while using one like "this.is.invalid.com" doesn't
>>> >>> provide the same level of guarantee."
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> No, not the same level, but so close as to make no real difference.
>>> >
>>> > No. I have seen a number of posts on Usenet telling various posters that
>>> > their fake-seeming domains were actually valid domains.
>>> >
>>> > Don't ask - I haven't kept a record of them :)
>>>
>>> OTOH, in this very thread, Char Jackson has pointed out one:
>>> unknown.com. And he further pointed out to Dave that invalid is supposed
>>> to be last in the domain name (i.e. it's the top-level domain).
>>
>>
>>Your point is well understood, and what Char Jackson pointed out is
>>correct. But it's still hard for me to imagine that my domain
>>this.is.invalid.com could ever be a valid domain.
>
> D:/>ping invalid.com
>
> Pinging invalid.com [64.187.101.62] with 32 bytes of data:
>
> Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
> Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
> Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
> Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
>
> Ping statistics for 64.187.101.62:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
> Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
> Minimum = 63ms, Maximum = 63ms, Average = 63ms
>
> Hmmm, since invalid.com apparently exists, (I didn't check whois
> records or anything, just this quick ping), it suddenly starts to seem
> a little more feasible that this.is.invalid.com could come into being.
> :)

Yes, but *you* are not in denial :)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
 
D

Dave

Flightless Bird
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:c5jk86hafvch3h1bnot8oghvov8dgemv9p@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 22:17:07 -0500, "Dave" <dave@unknown.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:j27f8654qgcnbdie5j5ishdcutveavo7r4@4ax.com...
>
>
>> > As far as I'm concerned, there are *two* reasons why I don't use my
>> > real e-mail address in newsgroups:
>> >
>> > 1. It can be harvested by spammers (that's probably the reason you
>> > meant).
>> >
>> > 2. I don't want to get e-mail replies to my posted messages. If you
>> > want to reply to me, reply in the newsgroup.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I hit the "Reply" button instead of
>> "Reply
>> Group" then the message will come to your email address. Or does it rely
>> on
>> the address you have listed and if it's a dud then the message goes into
>> limbo?
>
>
> It will be sent to the return address that I have configured my e-mail
> client (Agent) to use. In my case, as you can see from the above,
> that's kblake@this.is.invalid.com.
>
> As you might guess, that's not my real e-mail address, and it
> presumably is an address that doesn't exist. So the result will be
> that you will get an error message to that effect.
>
> Feel free to try it, and reply to kblake@this.is.invalid.com.
>

The message I sent via the "Reply" button bounced.
 
D

Dave

Flightless Bird
"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:d60o86hp7q75mg3kb00mdkae5osm95uno9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:34:24 -0500, "Dave" <dave@invalid.unk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:26ok869kc92ldb0iqidk8v33jdulaspdvc@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 22:17:07 -0500, "Dave" <dave@unknown.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I hit the "Reply" button instead of
>>>>"Reply
>>>>Group" then the message will come to your email address. Or does it rely
>>>>on
>>>>the address you have listed and if it's a dud then the message goes into
>>>>limbo?
>>>>Dave
>>>
>>> On a sort-of-related note, the domain you've chosen is valid, which
>>> probably wasn't your intention. Unknown.com sounds made up, but it's
>>> real.
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for the tip, I changed it to incorporate yours and Gene's
>>suggestions.
>>Maybe I'll stop getting some of the spam I get now. =D
>
> The .invalid is more or less supposed to be at the end of the address,
> not in the middle... :)
>
> I don't know if .unk is a valid domain, (too lazy to check), but if
> it's not, it probably could be in the future.
>

Point taken.
 
D

Dave

Flightless Bird
"Roy Smith" <rasmith1959@live.com> wrote in message
news:eR1jo.143394$pX3.18060@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...
> On 9/11/2010 12:34 PM, Dave wrote:
>>
>> "Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:26ok869kc92ldb0iqidk8v33jdulaspdvc@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 22:17:07 -0500, "Dave" <dave@unknown.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I hit the "Reply" button instead of
>>>> "Reply
>>>> Group" then the message will come to your email address. Or does it
>>>> rely on
>>>> the address you have listed and if it's a dud then the message goes
>>>> into
>>>> limbo?
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On a sort-of-related note, the domain you've chosen is valid, which
>>> probably wasn't your intention. Unknown.com sounds made up, but it's
>>> real.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the tip, I changed it to incorporate yours and Gene's
>> suggestions.
>> Maybe I'll stop getting some of the spam I get now. =D
>
> Sorry but if spammer's have already harvested your email address, then
> it's too late. In a sense it's like closing the barn door after the
> horse got out. :)
>
>
> --
>
> Roy Smith
> Windows 7 Professional
> Thunderbird 3.1.3
> Sunday, September 12, 2010 5:21:58 AM

It's probably already harvested. Setting the junk mail filters keeps most of
it under control, hopefully over time the spammers will stop using it.
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:03:57 -0500, "Dave" <dave@invalid.unk> wrote:

>
> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:c5jk86hafvch3h1bnot8oghvov8dgemv9p@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 22:17:07 -0500, "Dave" <dave@unknown.com> wrote:


> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I hit the "Reply" button instead of
> >> "Reply
> >> Group" then the message will come to your email address. Or does it rely
> >> on
> >> the address you have listed and if it's a dud then the message goes into
> >> limbo?
> >
> >
> > It will be sent to the return address that I have configured my e-mail
> > client (Agent) to use. In my case, as you can see from the above,
> > that's kblake@this.is.invalid.com.
> >
> > As you might guess, that's not my real e-mail address, and it
> > presumably is an address that doesn't exist. So the result will be
> > that you will get an error message to that effect.
> >
> > Feel free to try it, and reply to kblake@this.is.invalid.com.
> >
>
> The message I sent via the "Reply" button bounced.


Yep. My point exactly.
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:00:57 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not-me@other.invalid> wrote:


> > Hmmm, since invalid.com apparently exists, (I didn't check whois
> > records or anything, just this quick ping), it suddenly starts to seem
> > a little more feasible that this.is.invalid.com could come into being.
> > :)
>
> Yes, but *you* are not in denial :)


So you think I'm in denial?

I've already acknowledged that, as you said, "invalid" is the proper
way to do this. But I've also pointed out that "this.is.invalid.com"
is essentially just as good, since it's *highly* unlikely that it will
ever come into being as a real domain.

Yes, I could change my return address's domain from
"this.is.invalid.com" to "invalid," and maybe I will some day, when I
have the time to do it (it would have to be done in more places than
you probably realize, so I haven't taken the time to do it yet). But
since there is unlikely to be any problem with the domain I use, I see
no need to rush to do this.
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:50:54 -0700, Ken Blake
<kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:00:57 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
><not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> > Hmmm, since invalid.com apparently exists, (I didn't check whois
>> > records or anything, just this quick ping), it suddenly starts to seem
>> > a little more feasible that this.is.invalid.com could come into being.
>> > :)
>>
>> Yes, but *you* are not in denial :)
>
>
>So you think I'm in denial?
>
>I've already acknowledged that, as you said, "invalid" is the proper
>way to do this. But I've also pointed out that "this.is.invalid.com"
>is essentially just as good, since it's *highly* unlikely that it will
>ever come into being as a real domain.
>
>Yes, I could change my return address's domain from
>"this.is.invalid.com" to "invalid," and maybe I will some day, when I
>have the time to do it (it would have to be done in more places than
>you probably realize, so I haven't taken the time to do it yet). But
>since there is unlikely to be any problem with the domain I use, I see
>no need to rush to do this.

I'm not a system admin and have no skin in the game, but in another
group that I follow the sysadmin's would bristle at comments like
yours. Since the domain (invalid.com) does indeed exist, that means
that spam addressed to "this.is.invalid.com" goes to that domain and
needs to be handled there. It takes up bandwidth and resources.
 
D

Dave

Flightless Bird
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:gc2v86ttekbe54siitp95btev4dh8gd9ts@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:03:57 -0500, "Dave" <dave@invalid.unk> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:c5jk86hafvch3h1bnot8oghvov8dgemv9p@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 22:17:07 -0500, "Dave" <dave@unknown.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I hit the "Reply" button instead of
>> >> "Reply
>> >> Group" then the message will come to your email address. Or does it
>> >> rely
>> >> on
>> >> the address you have listed and if it's a dud then the message goes
>> >> into
>> >> limbo?
>> >
>> >
>> > It will be sent to the return address that I have configured my e-mail
>> > client (Agent) to use. In my case, as you can see from the above,
>> > that's kblake@this.is.invalid.com.
>> >
>> > As you might guess, that's not my real e-mail address, and it
>> > presumably is an address that doesn't exist. So the result will be
>> > that you will get an error message to that effect.
>> >
>> > Feel free to try it, and reply to kblake@this.is.invalid.com.
>> >
>>
>> The message I sent via the "Reply" button bounced.
>
>
> Yep. My point exactly.
>

I should have been more detailed, I was trying to say that I got what you
had said about it would bounce due to the invalid email addy.
Thanks to all for the tips, I have modified my address in kind in hopes of
preventing some of the spam that is sent by the address farmers.
Dave
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:33:35 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:50:54 -0700, Ken Blake
> <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:


> >Yes, I could change my return address's domain from
> >"this.is.invalid.com" to "invalid," and maybe I will some day, when I
> >have the time to do it (it would have to be done in more places than
> >you probably realize, so I haven't taken the time to do it yet). But
> >since there is unlikely to be any problem with the domain I use, I see
> >no need to rush to do this.
>
> I'm not a system admin and have no skin in the game, but in another
> group that I follow the sysadmin's would bristle at comments like
> yours. Since the domain (invalid.com) does indeed exist, that means
> that spam addressed to "this.is.invalid.com" goes to that domain and
> needs to be handled there. It takes up bandwidth and resources.



OK, I finally decided to go to the trouble of changing the return
address domains, and I've done so. Again, I don't see it as necessary,
but I did it anyway, so there's no longer any need to complain to me
about it.
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:24:49 -0700, Ken Blake <kblake@ikb.invalid>
wrote:

>OK, I finally decided to go to the trouble of changing the return
>address domains, and I've done so. Again, I don't see it as necessary,
>but I did it anyway, so there's no longer any need to complain to me
>about it.

:)
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:09:44 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:24:49 -0700, Ken Blake <kblake@ikb.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >OK, I finally decided to go to the trouble of changing the return
> >address domains, and I've done so. Again, I don't see it as necessary,
> >but I did it anyway, so there's no longer any need to complain to me
> >about it.
>
> :)


Glad to make you happy about it (especially since I didn't have to do
it in as many places as I thought I did).

And ultimately, you and Gene Bloch are right about it (although I
still think it's a very minor issue).
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:10:30 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:09:44 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:24:49 -0700, Ken Blake <kblake@ikb.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>OK, I finally decided to go to the trouble of changing the return
>>>address domains, and I've done so. Again, I don't see it as necessary,
>>>but I did it anyway, so there's no longer any need to complain to me
>>>about it.
>>
>> :)
>
>
> Glad to make you happy about it (especially since I didn't have to do
> it in as many places as I thought I did).
>
> And ultimately, you and Gene Bloch are right about it (although I
> still think it's a very minor issue).

You think it's minor because you are not the owner of a domain that, by
an unfortunate coincidence, someone else made up in an attempt to avoid
spam.

To answer an earlier question, yes, I do think you are (still) in
denial, but I thank you for your grudging acceptance of the recommended
changes.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:31:50 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not-me@other.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:10:30 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:09:44 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:24:49 -0700, Ken Blake <kblake@ikb.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>OK, I finally decided to go to the trouble of changing the return
> >>>address domains, and I've done so. Again, I don't see it as necessary,
> >>>but I did it anyway, so there's no longer any need to complain to me
> >>>about it.
> >>
> >> :)
> >
> >
> > Glad to make you happy about it (especially since I didn't have to do
> > it in as many places as I thought I did).
> >
> > And ultimately, you and Gene Bloch are right about it (although I
> > still think it's a very minor issue).
>
> You think it's minor because you are not the owner of a domain that, by
> an unfortunate coincidence, someone else made up in an attempt to avoid
> spam.
>
> To answer an earlier question, yes, I do think you are (still) in
> denial, but I thank you for your grudging acceptance of the recommended
> changes.


Have it your way. I'm not interested in arguing with you over what to
me in an insignificant issue. End of thread, as far as I'm concerned.
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:53:35 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:31:50 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
> <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:10:30 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:09:44 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:24:49 -0700, Ken Blake <kblake@ikb.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>OK, I finally decided to go to the trouble of changing the return
>>>>>address domains, and I've done so. Again, I don't see it as necessary,
>>>>>but I did it anyway, so there's no longer any need to complain to me
>>>>>about it.
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Glad to make you happy about it (especially since I didn't have to do
>>> it in as many places as I thought I did).
>>>
>>> And ultimately, you and Gene Bloch are right about it (although I
>>> still think it's a very minor issue).
>>
>> You think it's minor because you are not the owner of a domain that, by
>> an unfortunate coincidence, someone else made up in an attempt to avoid
>> spam.
>>
>> To answer an earlier question, yes, I do think you are (still) in
>> denial, but I thank you for your grudging acceptance of the recommended
>> changes.
>
>
> Have it your way. I'm not interested in arguing with you over what to
> me in an insignificant issue.

[ ]

> End of thread, as far as I'm concerned.

I knew that a long time ago :)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top