Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #58971 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-04-27 17:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-05-02 19:48 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 179 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-27 17:25 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-27 20:29 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-04-27 18:05 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2014-04-27 18:10 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-27 18:53 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-28 16:47 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-28 11:32 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? android <here@there.was> - 2014-04-28 21:30 +0200
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-29 09:17 +1200
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-29 03:02 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 17:04 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-28 22:22 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-28 19:23 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-28 18:32 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:38 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-29 03:00 +0000
POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-29 08:36 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-29 19:10 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-29 10:49 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-30 09:21 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:23 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-02 17:27 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2014-04-30 15:28 +0100
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 14:52 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:28 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:39 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-29 03:18 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-29 19:22 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-04-29 10:05 +0100
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2014-04-29 10:23 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-30 09:16 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-29 17:28 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:28 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-29 20:47 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-04-29 20:27 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-29 21:42 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 14:19 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-04-30 17:50 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 23:36 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-30 17:50 -0700
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-01 13:13 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-30 21:15 -0700
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-01 18:22 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:11 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:09 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-30 08:41 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-30 03:17 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-30 09:47 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-30 04:54 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-30 11:32 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-04-30 06:51 -0700
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-01 09:27 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 18:00 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-05-02 10:00 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-02 09:48 +0100
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-02 10:07 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:16 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 14:09 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:14 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 14:14 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-04-30 19:18 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 17:06 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-05-01 18:56 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-05-02 12:23 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-05-02 10:34 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2014-05-01 18:25 -0600
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 01:46 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-02 05:48 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-02 03:20 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP android <here@there.was> - 2014-05-02 10:50 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-02 06:04 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP android <here@there.was> - 2014-05-02 12:14 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:39 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 18:32 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-02 10:55 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 16:50 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-03 11:30 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-03 16:45 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-04 11:43 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-05 20:41 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-06 12:32 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-06 17:41 +0000
Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-07 12:25 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-08 00:10 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-07 20:32 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-05-08 04:29 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) dyera@not.freeshell.org.invalid - 2014-05-08 14:40 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-10 07:16 -0700
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-08 16:14 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-08 21:42 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-09 12:15 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-09 18:42 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-10 16:42 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-11 01:08 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-11 16:40 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-05-11 17:52 -0700
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-12 11:39 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2014-05-11 21:25 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-12 11:53 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 10:29 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-09 03:45 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 09:30 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-09 18:17 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 19:28 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-10 13:30 +1200
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-05-12 00:12 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2014-05-11 21:32 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-12 04:00 -0700
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-05-08 11:42 +0200
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-08 16:33 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-09 03:43 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-07 19:27 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-08 15:55 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-08 22:16 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-09 11:35 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-09 16:20 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-10 13:43 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-11 04:20 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-11 15:01 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 14:27 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-12 17:24 +0100
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 17:38 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-12 20:58 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 21:33 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-02 17:17 +0000
Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-03 12:10 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-03 23:13 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-08 03:49 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-08 16:02 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-09 09:22 +1200
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-09 01:20 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-09 11:43 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-09 18:36 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-10 17:47 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-11 19:38 +0100
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-11 19:05 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-11 20:13 +0100
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-11 23:17 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-12 10:01 +0100
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 10:48 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-12 15:24 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-12 17:22 +0100
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 20:34 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-12 20:57 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-12 02:20 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-11 15:14 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-10 13:53 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-10 20:29 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-11 16:21 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP android <here@there.was> - 2014-05-04 20:08 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 13:17 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 22:08 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 18:35 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-03 00:02 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-03 09:37 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-03 17:09 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-03 13:23 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2014-05-05 13:30 -0700
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP John White <jccw@comcast.net> - 2014-05-05 16:41 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 13:55 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP android <here@there.was> - 2014-05-02 16:10 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-05-02 10:37 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-02 10:48 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 11:09 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 17:06 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-02 17:23 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:34 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-03 12:01 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP dyera@not.freeshell.org.invalid - 2014-05-02 17:00 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 13:19 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP dyera@not.freeshell.org.invalid - 2014-05-03 16:29 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-03 12:46 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:35 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:27 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 17:41 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 22:14 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 18:46 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-05-02 23:33 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 19:48 -0400
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 17:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <120520141724425777%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #59315 |
In article <lkqlnu$qri$1@reader2.panix.com>, <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: > Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes: > > > Sorry, but your Fox News tactics leave me unfazed. You have to be > > consistent on the principles you hold, not adopt a relative morality > > based on whether or not it suits your needs at the moment. Spam and > > other junk *cannot* be put forward as an argument for the popularity of > > Usenet. If you can't see why that's the case, there is no point in > > continuing this discussion with you. > > Speaking of Fox (for those outside the USA, it's a rather perverted > and heavily biased TV news channel here), ... Biassed which way? I never watched [1] commercial TV when I lived in the US. [1] OK so I'm lying, yes yes I watched Perry Mason reruns and also ST-NG. Big deal. -- "If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid tripping your hair-trigger insecurities." - D M Procida, UCSM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 17:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <lkr0v8$khc$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59322 |
Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes, quoting me:
> > Speaking of Fox (for those outside the USA, it's a rather perverted
> > and heavily biased TV news channel here), ...
>
> Biassed which way? I never watched commercial TV when I lived in
> the US.
Towards the American political right (presidents Reagan, Bush, war-
mongers-in-general, etc). Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 20:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <slrnln2dga.29s7.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #59327 |
In message <lkr0v8$khc$1@reader2.panix.com> billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: > Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes, quoting me: >> > Speaking of Fox (for those outside the USA, it's a rather perverted >> > and heavily biased TV news channel here), ... >> >> Biassed which way? I never watched commercial TV when I lived in >> the US. > Towards the American political right (presidents Reagan, Bush, war- > mongers-in-general, etc). Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Reagen would be lambasted at Fox for being a touchy-feely anti-business liberal. Remember, Reagan wanted millionaires to pay taxes. -- You know a thorn can main / But a lover does the same / A gem will reflect light / And a Fool will marvel at the sight / A fool such as me, /Who sees not the gold, but the beauty of the shine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 21:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <lkren1$jjc$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59330 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
> Reagen would be lambasted at Fox for being a touchy-feely anti-business
> liberal. Remember, Reagan wanted millionaires to pay taxes.
As is all too fitting for this thread...
Idolatry Is Blind.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-02 17:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <bsi2a0FoeniU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #59089 |
On 2014-05-02, Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote: > In article <bsh4i9Fhtc4U1@mid.individual.net>, android <here@there.was> > wrote: > >> In article <5363472a$0$50666$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, >> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> >> > I can see Apple wishing to transition to IMAP and eventually deprecate >> > POP, just as they have NFS and now in process of moving away from AFP. >> > So i can understand (but not agree with) their attempt to make it hard >> > to find a way to configure POP. >> >> Oki... >> Could you shed some light over why they would want to limit the options >> for the user? > > Well, as someone who got fed up with the loss of MT-NW on Mavericks and > am now deep into developing my own Usenet reader, coding ain't cheap. *perk* A new Usenet client? I've toyed with the idea of designing one myself, but haven't yet found enough spare time to do it. Do tell us more about what you are doing! -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-03 12:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <droleary-E08491.12105603052014@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #59099 |
In article <bsi2a0FoeniU1@mid.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2014-05-02, Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> > In article <bsh4i9Fhtc4U1@mid.individual.net>, android <here@there.was>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Well, as someone who got fed up with the loss of MT-NW on Mavericks and
> > am now deep into developing my own Usenet reader, coding ain't cheap.
>
> *perk* A new Usenet client? I've toyed with the idea of designing one
> myself, but haven't yet found enough spare time to do it. Do tell us
> more about what you are doing!
Nothing to say that I haven't said in the past in various discussions.
I see the present/future of Usenet as a content delivery network (CDN)
that could/should have been used not only as the basis of open social
network for discussions, but for making things like podcasts available
instead of having small content providers crushed under the weight of
bandwidth costs. But, in general, I see the messages as distinct from
the medium, so my *plan* is to have a client that eventually goes beyond
NNTP to offer other messaging (IMAP, POP, RSS feeds, Twitter, whatever).
I'm focussing on Usenet, though, because of the sad state of affairs it
has on the Mac, especially now that MT-NW is dead.
What I have implemented so far is a basic NNTP framework that handles
communication with the server, and higher-level classes built on top of
that for groups and articles. The app on top of that is currently
multi-window documents like MT-NW rather than one tri-pane window like
Mail. It's reading and writing newsrc files, and I can right now get
the overviews and articles, but it's not pretty. No posting or
authentication or filtering yet. I can use it to go through the dozen
groups I read on Gmane, but that's it. Lots of work to do before it's
usable to any real degree. You'll know it's getting closer when my user
agent stops being MT-NW. :-)
--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, teranews.com,
and probably your server, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-03 23:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <bslbg3Ff56vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #59128 |
On 2014-05-03, Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote: > In article <bsi2a0FoeniU1@mid.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> On 2014-05-02, Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote: >> > In article <bsh4i9Fhtc4U1@mid.individual.net>, android <here@there.was> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Well, as someone who got fed up with the loss of MT-NW on Mavericks and >> > am now deep into developing my own Usenet reader, coding ain't cheap. >> >> *perk* A new Usenet client? I've toyed with the idea of designing one >> myself, but haven't yet found enough spare time to do it. Do tell us >> more about what you are doing! > > Nothing to say that I haven't said in the past in various discussions. > I see the present/future of Usenet as a content delivery network (CDN) > that could/should have been used not only as the basis of open social > network for discussions, but for making things like podcasts available > instead of having small content providers crushed under the weight of > bandwidth costs. But, in general, I see the messages as distinct from > the medium, so my *plan* is to have a client that eventually goes beyond > NNTP to offer other messaging (IMAP, POP, RSS feeds, Twitter, whatever). > I'm focussing on Usenet, though, because of the sad state of affairs it > has on the Mac, especially now that MT-NW is dead. > > What I have implemented so far is a basic NNTP framework that handles > communication with the server, and higher-level classes built on top of > that for groups and articles. The app on top of that is currently > multi-window documents like MT-NW rather than one tri-pane window like > Mail. It's reading and writing newsrc files, and I can right now get > the overviews and articles, but it's not pretty. No posting or > authentication or filtering yet. I can use it to go through the dozen > groups I read on Gmane, but that's it. Lots of work to do before it's > usable to any real degree. You'll know it's getting closer when my user > agent stops being MT-NW. :-) Thanks for the deets. : ) -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 03:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <lkeusm$j11$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59128 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes:
> I see the present/future of Usenet as a content delivery network (CDN)
> that could/should have been used not only as the basis of open social
> network for discussions
This already exists.
> but for making things like podcasts available instead of having small
> content providers crushed under the weight of bandwidth costs.
Do you think sites hosting Usenet get their bandwidth for free...?
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 16:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <droleary-CF2971.16025408052014@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #59188 |
In article <lkeusm$j11$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> > but for making things like podcasts available instead of having small
> > content providers crushed under the weight of bandwidth costs.
>
> Do you think sites hosting Usenet get their bandwidth for free...?
Maybe. If in one case an ISP is streaming videos from YouTube to each
of their 10000 customers and in the other case they're offering
something that's been cached locally on an in-house Usenet server, they
would be saving a *ton* of bandwidth going with the 2nd option.
--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, teranews.com,
and probably your server, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 09:22 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <090520140922131252%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #59202 |
In article <droleary-CF2971.16025408052014@news.eternal-september.org>, Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote: > In article <lkeusm$j11$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote: > > > > > > but for making things like podcasts available instead of having small > > > content providers crushed under the weight of bandwidth costs. > > > > Do you think sites hosting Usenet get their bandwidth for free...? > > Maybe. If in one case an ISP is streaming videos from YouTube to each > of their 10000 customers and in the other case they're offering > something that's been cached locally on an in-house Usenet server, they > would be saving a *ton* of bandwidth going with the 2nd option. Yep, but still charging their customer the same excessively over-bloated fees. :-(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 01:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <lkhagu$r7i$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59202 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes, quoting me:
> > Do you think sites hosting Usenet get their bandwidth for free...?
>
> Maybe. If in one case an ISP is streaming videos from YouTube to each
> of their 10000 customers and in the other case they're offering
> something that's been cached locally on an in-house Usenet server, they
> would be saving a *ton* of bandwidth going with the 2nd option.
Nope. Usenet will cost more. As you'd use it, a lot more. Example,
since you mentioned Youtube -
https://peering.google.com/about/ggc.html
| Google Global Cache
| We aim to deliver Google content and services as close to users as
| possible in order to provide the best possible performance and lowest
| cost for network operators to serve traffic demanded by their subscribers.
| With GGC, network operators and Internet Service Providers deploy a
| small number of Google servers inside their network to serve popular
| Google content, including YouTube.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 11:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <droleary-64E75F.11430309052014@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #59209 |
In article <lkhagu$r7i$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes, quoting me:
>
> > > Do you think sites hosting Usenet get their bandwidth for free...?
> >
> > Maybe. If in one case an ISP is streaming videos from YouTube to each
> > of their 10000 customers and in the other case they're offering
> > something that's been cached locally on an in-house Usenet server, they
> > would be saving a *ton* of bandwidth going with the 2nd option.
>
> Nope. Usenet will cost more. As you'd use it, a lot more. Example,
> since you mentioned Youtube -
>
> https://peering.google.com/about/ggc.html
>
> | Google Global Cache
>
> | We aim to deliver Google content and services as close to users as
> | possible in order to provide the best possible performance and lowest
> | cost for network operators to serve traffic demanded by their subscribers.
>
> | With GGC, network operators and Internet Service Providers deploy a
> | small number of Google servers inside their network to serve popular
> | Google content, including YouTube.
Like I said, *of course* people have been pushing their proprietary CDNs
to do what Usenet could have been doing all along. If I were an ISP,
I'd rather have one generic CDN protocol on servers that I control
rather than having hundreds of content providers trying to co-locate
their own black box hardware inside my operation. Usenet can benefit
*everyone*, not just the big players like Google.
--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, teranews.com,
and probably your server, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 18:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <lkj76i$gua$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59219 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes:
> Like I said, *of course* people have been pushing their proprietary CDNs
Anyone can post to Youtube.
> to do what Usenet could have been doing all along.
But, you're continually ignoring the fact that Usenet was not created
nor intended to do this.
> If I were an ISP, I'd rather have one generic CDN protocol on servers
> that I control rather than having hundreds of content providers
Where do you get hundreds?
> trying to co-locate their own black box hardware inside my operation.
"My corporate policy has always been software as a service..."
Again, it all comes down to who's paying for it. In addition to some
Usenet admin experience, you'd benefit from a bit of ISP experience as
well.
> Usenet can benefit *everyone*, not just the big players like Google.
_Something_ may benefit everyone. Usenet is not it. You're putting
the cart before the horse. It'd be best to first find a horse.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 17:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <lklon5$m9o$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59223 |
> Again, it all comes down to who's paying for it. In addition to some
> Usenet admin experience, you'd benefit from a bit of ISP experience as
> well.
So -- would you rather have this...
http://preview.tinyurl.com/njxvlaq -or-
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/level-3-claims-six-isps-dropping-packets-every-day-over-money-disputes/
| Level 3 claims six ISPs dropping packets every day over money disputes
|
| Network provider doesn't name and shame ISPs guilty of "permanent
| congestion."
|
| by Jon Brodkin - May 5 2014, 10:25am MST
|
| Network operator Level 3, which has asked the FCC to protect it from
| "arbitrary access charges" that ISPs want in exchange for accepting
| Internet traffic, today claimed that six consumer broadband providers
| have allowed a state of "permanent congestion" by refusing to upgrade
| peering connections for the past year.
|
| Level 3 and Cogent, another network operator, have been involved in
| disputes with ISPs over whether they should pay for the right to send
| them traffic. ISPs have demanded payment in exchange for accepting
| streaming video and other data that is passed from the network providers
| to ISPs and eventually to consumers.
|
| When the interconnections aren't upgraded, it can lead to congestion and
| dropped packets, as we wrote previously regarding a dispute between
| Cogent and Verizon. In a blog post today, Level 3 VP Mark Taylor wrote:
|
| A port that is on average utilized at 90 percent will be saturated,
| dropping packets, for several hours a day. We have congested ports
| saturated to those levels with 12 of our 51 peers. Six of those 12
| have a single congested port, and we are both (Level 3 and our peer)
| in the process of making upgrades--this is business as usual and happens
| occasionally as traffic swings around the Internet as customers change
| providers.
|
| That leaves the remaining six peers with congestion on almost all of
| the interconnect ports between us. Congestion that is permanent, has
| been in place for well over a year and where our peer refuses to augment
| capacity. They are deliberately harming the service they deliver to
| their paying customers. They are not allowing us to fulfill the requests
| their customers make for content.
|
| Five of those congested peers are in the United States and one is in
| Europe. There are none in any other part of the world. All six are large
| Broadband consumer networks with a dominant or exclusive market share in
| their local market. In countries or markets where consumers have
| multiple Broadband choices (like the UK) there are no congested peers.
|
| [...]
...or a few CDNs co-locate their own servers at your ISP?
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-11 19:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <110520141938313439%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #59248 |
In article <lklon5$m9o$1@reader2.panix.com>, <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: > > Again, it all comes down to who's paying for it. In addition to some > > Usenet admin experience, you'd benefit from a bit of ISP experience as > > well. > > So -- would you rather have this... > > http://preview.tinyurl.com/njxvlaq -or- > > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/level-3-claims-six-isps- > dropping-packets-every-day-over-money-disputes/ > > | Level 3 claims six ISPs dropping packets every day over money disputes Are these people customers of level3? Do they have worldwide backbones? Or are they just local ISPs providing connectivity to end-users? -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-11 19:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <lkohla$qhb$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59286 |
Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
> > | Level 3 claims six ISPs dropping packets every day over money disputes
>
> Are these people customers of level3? Do they have worldwide backbones?
> Or are they just local ISPs providing connectivity to end-users?
Mark Taylor (L3 VP of Content and Media) is calling them peers, which
means they are not customers. Too bad he didn't name them, but I'd bet
he'd be buried in lawsuits if he did. My guess is they are the larger
CATV and Telecom companies (Netflix copetitors) in the USA. Don't have
a clue about the one in Europe, though.
L3's peering policy -
http://www.level3.com/en/legal/ip-traffic-exchange-policy/
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-11 20:13 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <110520142013027741%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #59288 |
In article <lkohla$qhb$1@reader2.panix.com>, <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: > Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes: > > > > | Level 3 claims six ISPs dropping packets every day over money disputes > > > > Are these people customers of level3? Do they have worldwide backbones? > > Or are they just local ISPs providing connectivity to end-users? > > Mark Taylor (L3 VP of Content and Media) is calling them peers, which > means they are not customers. Too bad he didn't name them, but I'd bet > he'd be buried in lawsuits if he did. My guess is they are the larger > CATV and Telecom companies (Netflix copetitors) in the USA. If they are limited to the USA, either they don't need global connectivity, in which case why are they peering with level3, or they do, in which case they would be customers. If they are customers it's up to them to rent a pipe of sufficient bandwidth for their needs from level3. So what is going on? -- "If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid tripping your hair-trigger insecurities." - D M Procida, UCSM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-11 23:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <lkp0dm$133$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59289 |
Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
> If they are limited to the USA, either they don't need global
> connectivity, in which case why are they peering with level3
I don't know if they're global vendors, but if they have enough
customers that other vendors want to reach, sometimes settlement
settlement free peering can be negotiated.
"Settlement free" does not (that I know of, anyway) allow transit
traffic. A couple examples -
http://www.comcast.com/peering
| traffic to/from the Comcast network must be on-net only
http://www.level3.com/en/legal/ip-traffic-exchange-policy/
| must announce only routes for paid traffic exchanged with its
| customers (and Level 3 and Global Crossing will announce only
| routes for paid traffic exchanged with their customers)
> So what is going on?
Usually net vendors are extremely quiet about all this. I'm
surprised L3 disclosed as much as they did. It was probably
from frustration. I suspect some of L3's customers are not
happy.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 10:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <120520141001119109%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #59296 |
In article <lkp0dm$133$1@reader2.panix.com>, <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: > Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes: > > > If they are limited to the USA, either they don't need global > > connectivity, in which case why are they peering with level3 > > I don't know if they're global vendors, but if they have enough > customers that other vendors want to reach, sometimes settlement > settlement free peering can be negotiated. Hmmm. I can imagine two smaller players doing that, but what's in it for level3? If you have a national or regional network, which ultimately is providing connectivity to end users, they have to provide global connectivity to those end users. IME, that's done by buying pipes from the likes of Telia, Global Crossing, level3, and others. You typically have several such pipes to more than one provider. It's 8 years now since I stopped being involved in that game, but I don't recall any major innovations being on the horizon that were going to alter that general approach. Of course, if you are a regional network providing connectivity within that region for a community of interest, you'd be likely to have settlement-free peering to similar communities in other regions, as that's likely to be the majority of your traffic. But for commodity IP, just buy it off the shelf. -- "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place." - Douglas Adams
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 10:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <lkq8tr$rpo$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59309 |
Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes, quoting me:
> > I don't know if they're global vendors, but if they have enough
> > customers that other vendors want to reach, sometimes settlement
> > settlement free peering can be negotiated.
>
> Hmmm. I can imagine two smaller players doing that, but what's in it
> for level3?
>
> If you have a national or regional network, which ultimately is
> providing connectivity to end users, they have to provide global
> connectivity to those end users. IME, that's done by buying pipes from
> the likes of Telia, Global Crossing, level3, and others. You typically
> have several such pipes to more than one provider.
Yea, that's what my upstream ISP does, along with most others.
So, I'm guessing a few, like the CATV companies with millions of end
users, have managed to peer settlement-free with some of the backbones.
> It's 8 years now since I stopped being involved in that game, but I
> don't recall any major innovations being on the horizon that were going
> to alter that general approach.
It's been longer for me, but I doubt anyone has gotten less secretive
about it. I looked a bit, but couldn't find any publicly available
info. One thing I do recall was going from a customer to a peer was
essentially impossible. That might have changed. Heh.
> Of course, if you are a regional network providing connectivity within
> that region for a community of interest, you'd be likely to have
> settlement-free peering to similar communities in other regions, as
> that's likely to be the majority of your traffic.
Yea, Equinix et al. have become quite big...
> But for commodity IP, just buy it off the shelf.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web