Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.telecom.broadband > #57259 > unrolled thread

Broadband Over the Mobile Network

Back to article view | Back to uk.telecom.broadband

Contents

  Broadband Over the Mobile Network "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-05-21 09:15 +0000
    Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-21 10:41 +0100
      Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-05-21 10:05 +0000
        Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 10:16 +0000
        Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 15:07 +0100
      Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Mark Undrill <spam@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-21 11:17 +0100
    Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2026-05-21 12:34 +0100
      Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-21 14:11 +0100
        Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-05-21 13:19 +0000
          Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-21 15:06 +0100
            Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2026-05-21 22:09 +0100
              Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-22 00:01 +0100
                Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 05:43 +0000
                Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2026-05-22 08:22 +0100
                  Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 07:36 +0000
                    Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2026-05-22 09:15 +0100
                    Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-22 21:47 +0100
                      Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 10:09 +0000
                        Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 10:32 +0000
                          Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-23 20:48 +0100
                            Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 06:11 +0000
                              Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-24 11:27 +0100
                                Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 11:18 +0000
                                  Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-24 14:18 +0100
                                  Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network David Rance <david@SPAMOFF.invalid> - 2026-05-24 18:37 +0100
                                  Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 22:10 +0000
                                    Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-25 10:21 +0100
                          Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-24 10:58 +0100
                            Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-24 11:29 +0100
        Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2026-05-21 14:23 +0100
          Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-21 15:15 +0100
            Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2026-05-21 22:16 +0100
        Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 14:12 +0000
        Sending email from own server (was: Broadband Over the Mobile Network) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-05-22 13:59 +0100
          Re: Sending email from own server Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2026-05-22 14:20 +0100
            Re: Sending email from own server Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 15:23 +0000
              Re: Sending email from own server Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2026-05-22 20:03 +0100
      Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-05-21 19:01 +0100
    Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 13:26 +0000
    Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-05-21 15:18 +0100
    Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Jason H <jason_hindle@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-30 09:29 +0000
      Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-30 13:43 +0100
      Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-05-30 15:54 +0100
        Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-30 16:01 +0100
          Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-05-30 20:12 +0100
        Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-30 17:22 +0100
        Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-30 17:25 +0100
          Re: Broadband Over the Mobile Network David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-05-30 17:51 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#57299

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>> How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
>>>>> a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
>>>>> connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing
>>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses you’d be out of business as an
>>>>> email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses. 
>>>>> 
>>>> I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
>>>> start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
>>>> viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
>>>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.
>>> 
>>> I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the
>>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the
>>> immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats. 
>>> 
>>> 
>> Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
>> Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but
>> when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In
>> my line of work there’s no chance that email will go away. 
>> 
> You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you
> last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.
> 
> I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
> have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
> ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram
> (or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating
> to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since
> it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)

Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in business
who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in different time
zones you need a method of communication that can be attended to not
immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is sent and received, can have
documents attached, uses common standards (ie not some proprietary
protocol) because you don’t know what the other end is using, etc. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57301

On 2026/5/24 7:11:14, Tweed wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:
>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> []
>>>>>> How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
>>>>>> a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
>>>>>> connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing
>>>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses you’d be out of business as an
>>>>>> email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses. 
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
>>>>> start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
>>>>> viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
>>>>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.
>>>>
>>>> I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the
>>>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the
>>>> immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
>>> Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but
>>> when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In
>>> my line of work there’s no chance that email will go away. 
>>>
>> You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you
>> last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.
>>
>> I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
>> have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
>> ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram
>> (or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating
>> to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since
>> it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)
> 
> Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in business
> who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in different time
> zones you need a method of communication that can be attended to not
> immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is sent and received, can have
> documents attached, uses common standards (ie not some proprietary
> protocol) because you don’t know what the other end is using, etc. 
> 
I'm with you (though I remember confusion over UUcode, MIME, and I think
a later protocol - initially UU was the default and you only used MIME
for those you knew could handle it, now many clients don't even know
what to do with UU - not to mention whether truly embedded or not);
however, as Chris says, some of today's generation struggle with email.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If this power [television] is ever brought to mechanical perfection,
there is little reason, except the desire to be gregarious, that anyone
but a few should go in person to any place of entertainment again.
- BBC yearbook 1930

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57303

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On 2026/5/24 7:11:14, Tweed wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>> On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:
>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>> []
>>>>>>> How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
>>>>>>> a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
>>>>>>> connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing
>>>>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses you’d be out of business as an
>>>>>>> email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
>>>>>> start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
>>>>>> viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
>>>>>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the
>>>>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the
>>>>> immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
>>>> Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but
>>>> when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In
>>>> my line of work there’s no chance that email will go away. 
>>>> 
>>> You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you
>>> last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.
>>> 
>>> I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
>>> have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
>>> ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram
>>> (or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating
>>> to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since
>>> it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)
>> 
>> Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in business
>> who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in different time
>> zones you need a method of communication that can be attended to not
>> immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is sent and received, can have
>> documents attached, uses common standards (ie not some proprietary
>> protocol) because you don’t know what the other end is using, etc. 
>> 
> I'm with you (though I remember confusion over UUcode, MIME, and I think
> a later protocol - initially UU was the default and you only used MIME
> for those you knew could handle it, now many clients don't even know
> what to do with UU - not to mention whether truly embedded or not);
> however, as Chris says, some of today's generation struggle with email.

Struggle yes. I’ve noticed that the younger folk agonise for ages composing
an email. Me, I just type a few quick lines and hit send. Extra black marks
for people who start emails with “I hope this email finds you well” or
similar. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57304

On 2026/5/24 12:18:39, Tweed wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On 2026/5/24 7:11:14, Tweed wrote:
>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>> How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
>>>>>>>> a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
>>>>>>>> connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing
>>>>>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses you’d be out of business as an
>>>>>>>> email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
>>>>>>> start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
>>>>>>> viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
>>>>>>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the
>>>>>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the
>>>>>> immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
>>>>> Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but
>>>>> when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In
>>>>> my line of work there’s no chance that email will go away. 
>>>>>
>>>> You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you
>>>> last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.
>>>>
>>>> I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
>>>> have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
>>>> ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram
>>>> (or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating
>>>> to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since
>>>> it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)
>>>
>>> Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in business
>>> who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in different time
>>> zones you need a method of communication that can be attended to not
>>> immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is sent and received, can have
>>> documents attached, uses common standards (ie not some proprietary
>>> protocol) because you don’t know what the other end is using, etc. 
>>>
>> I'm with you (though I remember confusion over UUcode, MIME, and I think
>> a later protocol - initially UU was the default and you only used MIME
>> for those you knew could handle it, now many clients don't even know
>> what to do with UU - not to mention whether truly embedded or not);
>> however, as Chris says, some of today's generation struggle with email.
> 
> Struggle yes. I’ve noticed that the younger folk agonise for ages composing
> an email. Me, I just type a few quick lines and hit send. Extra black marks
> for people who start emails with “I hope this email finds you well” or
> similar. 
> 
Yes, that makes me think I'm back in the days of "referring to yours of
the 5th ult."!

Or who sign off with "Yours sincerely/faithfully". (I might stretch to a
"Regards,", though not often.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Key to understanding the English is that they do serious things
sillily, and silly things seriously.
- @williambulmer6389 on YouTube, ~2024

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57305

On 24/05/2026 12:18, Tweed wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On 2026/5/24 7:11:14, Tweed wrote:
>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>> How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
>>>>>>>> a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
>>>>>>>> connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing
>>>>>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses you’d be out of business as an
>>>>>>>> email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
>>>>>>> start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
>>>>>>> viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
>>>>>>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the
>>>>>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the
>>>>>> immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
>>>>> Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but
>>>>> when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In
>>>>> my line of work there’s no chance that email will go away.
>>>>>
>>>> You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you
>>>> last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.
>>>>
>>>> I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
>>>> have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
>>>> ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram
>>>> (or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating
>>>> to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since
>>>> it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)
>>>
>>> Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in business
>>> who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in different time
>>> zones you need a method of communication that can be attended to not
>>> immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is sent and received, can have
>>> documents attached, uses common standards (ie not some proprietary
>>> protocol) because you don’t know what the other end is using, etc.
>>>
>> I'm with you (though I remember confusion over UUcode, MIME, and I think
>> a later protocol - initially UU was the default and you only used MIME
>> for those you knew could handle it, now many clients don't even know
>> what to do with UU - not to mention whether truly embedded or not);
>> however, as Chris says, some of today's generation struggle with email.
> 
> Struggle yes. I’ve noticed that the younger folk agonise for ages composing
> an email. Me, I just type a few quick lines and hit send. Extra black marks
> for people who start emails with “I hope this email finds you well” or
> similar.
> 

Or "Hi, how are you doing?"

How am I doing WHAT?

David

-- 
David Rance    writing from Le Mesnil Villement, Calvados, France

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57306

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On 2026/5/24 7:11:14, Tweed wrote:
>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>> How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
>>>>>>>> a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
>>>>>>>> connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing
>>>>>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses you’d be out of business as an
>>>>>>>> email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
>>>>>>> start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
>>>>>>> viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
>>>>>>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the
>>>>>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the
>>>>>> immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
>>>>> Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but
>>>>> when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In
>>>>> my line of work there’s no chance that email will go away. 
>>>>> 
>>>> You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you
>>>> last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.
>>>> 
>>>> I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
>>>> have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
>>>> ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram
>>>> (or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating
>>>> to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since
>>>> it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)
>>> 
>>> Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in business
>>> who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in different time
>>> zones you need a method of communication that can be attended to not
>>> immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is sent and received, can have
>>> documents attached, uses common standards (ie not some proprietary
>>> protocol) because you don’t know what the other end is using, etc. 
>>> 
>> I'm with you (though I remember confusion over UUcode, MIME, and I think
>> a later protocol - initially UU was the default and you only used MIME
>> for those you knew could handle it, now many clients don't even know
>> what to do with UU - not to mention whether truly embedded or not);
>> however, as Chris says, some of today's generation struggle with email.
> 
> Struggle yes. I’ve noticed that the younger folk agonise for ages composing
> an email. 

Literal days of agony. Not even kidding. 

> Me, I just type a few quick lines and hit send. 

Me too, mostly. 

> Extra black marks
> for people who start emails with “I hope this email finds you well” or
> similar. 

That's a bit harsh. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57307

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> writes:

> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>> On 2026/5/24 7:11:14, Tweed wrote:
>>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>> [] > How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when
>>>>>>>>CGNAT was a bit of > a novelty. These days, with probably the
>>>>>>>>vast majority of consumer > connections (including mobile
>>>>>>>>phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing > dynamically allocated
>>>>>>>>routeable addresses you’d be out of business as an > email
>>>>>>>>provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near
>>>>>>>> future start to be considered an anachronism, and those using
>>>>>>>> it start to be viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as
>>>>>>>> those who now do not possess a smartphone, or who use a
>>>>>>>> landline.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit
>>>>>>> with the asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of
>>>>>>> email. They're used to the immediacy of instragram or snapchat
>>>>>>> or family groupchats.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover
>>>>>> email.  Instant messaging in its various forms works within an
>>>>>> organisation, but when you need to deal with external folk you
>>>>>> still need email, mostly. In my line of work there’s no chance
>>>>>> that email will go away.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when
>>>>> did you last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions
>>>>> happened there.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK,
>>>>> I have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them
>>>>> for ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on
>>>>> instagram (or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example
>>>>> matters relating to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally
>>>>> open to all, but since it's in the middle of a weekday morning a
>>>>> young person is very rare.)
>>>> 
>>>> Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in
>>>> business who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in
>>>> different time zones you need a method of communication that can be
>>>> attended to not immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is
>>>> sent and received, can have documents attached, uses common
>>>> standards (ie not some proprietary protocol) because you don’t know
>>>> what the other end is using, etc.
>>>> 
>>> I'm with you (though I remember confusion over UUcode, MIME, and I
>>> think a later protocol - initially UU was the default and you only
>>> used MIME for those you knew could handle it, now many clients don't
>>> even know what to do with UU - not to mention whether truly embedded
>>> or not); however, as Chris says, some of today's generation struggle
>>> with email.
>> 
>> Struggle yes. I’ve noticed that the younger folk agonise for ages
>> composing an email.
>
> Literal days of agony. Not even kidding.
>
>> Me, I just type a few quick lines and hit send.
>
> Me too, mostly.
>
>> Extra black marks for people who start emails with “I hope this email
>> finds you well” or similar.
>
> That's a bit harsh.

I have had so many misunderstandings because of brief ambiguous text
messages and emails, I think we should go back to the 18th centuary art
of writing long letters. In those days as the turn around time was so
long it was better to say it twice in two different ways than say it
ambiguously.

You can write formal or informal emails, just as you could with
letters. You can even use Delta Chat to sent emails with a chat
interface.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57300

On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>> On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
>>> []
>>>> How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
>>>> a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
>>>> connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing
>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses you’d be out of business as an
>>>> email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses. 
>>>>
>>> I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
>>> start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
>>> viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
>>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.
>>
>> I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the
>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the
>> immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats. 
>>
>>
> Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
> Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but
> when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In
> my line of work there’s no chance that email will go away. 
> 
You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you
last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.

I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram
(or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating
to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since
it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And Jonathan Harker would never have sent all those letters to his
beloved Mina from Transylvania, he'd have texted her instead. "Stuck in
weird castle w guy w big teeth. Missing u. xxxx (-:"
- Alison Graham, RT 2015/11/7-13

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57302

Please ignore duplication; problems with Thunderbird and/or
eternal-september made me see it as not having been sent, though it
seems it was (though possibly some time after I created it).

On 2026/5/24 10:58:11, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>> How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
>>>>> a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
>>>>> connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing
>>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses you’d be out of business as an
>>>>> email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses. 
>>>>>
>>>> I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
>>>> start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
>>>> viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
>>>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.
>>>
>>> I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the
>>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the
>>> immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats. 
>>>
>>>
>> Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
>> Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but
>> when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In
>> my line of work there’s no chance that email will go away. 
>>
> You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you
> last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.
> 
> I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
> have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
> ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram
> (or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating
> to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since
> it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)



-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If this power [television] is ever brought to mechanical perfection,
there is little reason, except the desire to be gregarious, that anyone
but a few should go in person to any place of entertainment again.
- BBC yearbook 1930

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57267

Theo wrote:

snip]

> 
> I would expect email to be going via an email provider like Gmail, Outlook,
> or a hosting company's SMTP server.  Are you saying those may block genuine
> authenticated users connecting via CGNAT?

I'm fairly sure Gmail doesn't because many of their customers only use 
mobile connections.  Which is why I'm always very suspicious of 
unsolicited emails from gmail addresses.

Don't know about Outlook.

A connection hosting company such as Zen Internet will usually block any 
SMTP requests that do not come from their own IP range.

An email hosting service that you pay for will check the IP of an SMTP 
request against blacklists; and this is what usually catches those using 
CGNAT.


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57272

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Theo wrote:
> 
> snip]
> 
> > 
> > I would expect email to be going via an email provider like Gmail, Outlook,
> > or a hosting company's SMTP server.  Are you saying those may block genuine
> > authenticated users connecting via CGNAT?
> 
> I'm fairly sure Gmail doesn't because many of their customers only use 
> mobile connections.  Which is why I'm always very suspicious of 
> unsolicited emails from gmail addresses.
> 
> Don't know about Outlook.
> 
> A connection hosting company such as Zen Internet will usually block any 
> SMTP requests that do not come from their own IP range.

ISPs don't really want to be in the email game so increasingly they don't
have any of their own SMTP servers.

> An email hosting service that you pay for will check the IP of an SMTP 
> request against blacklists; and this is what usually catches those using 
> CGNAT.

Email hosting companies check the sending IP of emails delivered from the
internet to their customers.  But emails uploaded to their server by their
customers for sending to the internet come in a different route - they are
authenticated with customer login details, so they have no need to check
against IP blacklists.  Which hosting company is denying customers the
ability to use the service they've paid for based on the reputation of their
IP?

Again, if you are running a mailserver at home and are trying to deliver
email direct to the recipient (ie not a customer of that email hosting
company, just sending direct to one of their users) then your IP is likely
to be blacklisted.  But since 10+ years ago you shouldn't do this.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57279

Theo wrote:

[snip]
> 
>> An email hosting service that you pay for will check the IP of an SMTP
>> request against blacklists; and this is what usually catches those using
>> CGNAT.
> 
> Email hosting companies check the sending IP of emails delivered from the
> internet to their customers.  But emails uploaded to their server by their
> customers for sending to the internet come in a different route

- also via a firewall -

> - they are
> authenticated with customer login details, so they have no need to check
> against IP blacklists.  

But many do in fact check against IP blacklists.  I have seen Zen 
Internet do this.  If your credentials have been compromised then the 
email hosting company may be sending malicious mail purporting to 
originate from you; and they REALLY DO NOT want to be found doing that.


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57271

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>>> Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that 
>>> you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.
>> 
>> Be aware that most mobile networks use CGNAT.  Professional email 
>> services may reject connections coming from CGNAT because it allows 
>> multiple users per public IP, and some of those users will (perhaps 
>> unkowingly) send "unsavoury material".
>> 
>> It is possible to get a static public IP but it won't be at the entry 
>> level price.
> 
> I would expect email to be going via an email provider like Gmail, Outlook,
> or a hosting company's SMTP server.  Are you saying those may block genuine
> authenticated users connecting via CGNAT?

Not in my experience. I do have one service that work uses which is
extremely sensitive and regularly complaining of allegedly cross-site
scripting attacks. I have to use a VPN with that, but otherwise there are
no issues. 

> Running your own SMTP server which routes direct to the recipient from
> behind an ISP connection is a recipe for trouble nowadays, CGNAT or no
> CGNAT.  So don't do that.
> 
> Theo
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57290 — Sending email from own server (was: Broadband Over the Mobile Network)

Theo wrote:

> Running your own SMTP server which routes direct to the recipient from
> behind an ISP connection is a recipe for trouble nowadays, CGNAT or no
> CGNAT.  So don't do that.

It still works for me, but maybe I'm part of a lucky minority.  I've
been doing it for almost 26 years, after having registered my own domain
in June 2000, and for 23 of those years the server has had the same
static IP address (in an IPv4 /29 that I got from Zen).

It tends to be more reliable than sending via Zen, as their outgoing
mailservers occasionally get added to the various anti-spam blocklists.
Another advantage for important emails (e.g. to solicitors) is that
after sending I can check my logs to verify that the email was received
by the destination server.

Over the years I've had to make some config changes to be able to
deliver to the likes of gmail and yahoo, specifically setting up
reverse DNS early on, then SPF some time later, and more recently
DKIM and DMARC.

-- 
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57292 — Re: Sending email from own server

Geoff Clare wrote:

[snip]
.
> 
> It still works for me, but maybe I'm part of a lucky minority.  I've
> been doing it for almost 26 years, after having registered my own domain
> in June 2000, and for 23 of those years the server has had the same
> static IP address (in an IPv4 /29 that I got from Zen).
> 
> It tends to be more reliable than sending via Zen, as their outgoing
> mailservers occasionally get added to the various anti-spam blocklists.
> Another advantage for important emails (e.g. to solicitors) is that
> after sending I can check my logs to verify that the email was received
> by the destination server.
> 
> Over the years I've had to make some config changes to be able to
> deliver to the likes of gmail and yahoo, specifically setting up
> reverse DNS early on, then SPF some time later, and more recently
> DKIM and DMARC.

All the things you mention: Static IP, Reverse DNS, SPF, DKIM and DMARC 
are all essential for your own server.

It's worth specifying a backup server in your MX record so people can 
still send you emails when your server is down or its internet 
connection has failed.  So sensible battery backup is also worthwhile.


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57293 — Re: Sending email from own server

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Geoff Clare wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> .
>> 
>> It still works for me, but maybe I'm part of a lucky minority.  I've
>> been doing it for almost 26 years, after having registered my own domain
>> in June 2000, and for 23 of those years the server has had the same
>> static IP address (in an IPv4 /29 that I got from Zen).
>> 
>> It tends to be more reliable than sending via Zen, as their outgoing
>> mailservers occasionally get added to the various anti-spam blocklists.
>> Another advantage for important emails (e.g. to solicitors) is that
>> after sending I can check my logs to verify that the email was received
>> by the destination server.
>> 
>> Over the years I've had to make some config changes to be able to
>> deliver to the likes of gmail and yahoo, specifically setting up
>> reverse DNS early on, then SPF some time later, and more recently
>> DKIM and DMARC.
> 
> All the things you mention: Static IP, Reverse DNS, SPF, DKIM and DMARC 
> are all essential for your own server.
> 
> It's worth specifying a backup server in your MX record so people can 
> still send you emails when your server is down or its internet 
> connection has failed.  So sensible battery backup is also worthwhile.
> 
> 
None of which helps the OP. Thinking further about the possible
blacklisting of CGNAT IP addresses, don’t most mail providers now require
authentication, eg authenticated SMTP? So they know who their possible spam
originator is and can disable at account level. Disabling at IP address
level doesn’t seem sensible in the modern world. Gone are the days where
you could simply fire email at an unauthenticated SMTP server on port 25. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57294 — Re: Sending email from own server

Tweed wrote:

[snip]

> None of which helps the OP. Thinking further about the possible
> blacklisting of CGNAT IP addresses, don’t most mail providers now require
> authentication, eg authenticated SMTP? So they know who their possible spam
> originator is and can disable at account level. Disabling at IP address
> level doesn’t seem sensible in the modern world. Gone are the days where
> you could simply fire email at an unauthenticated SMTP server on port 25.

Perhaps somebody from a mail hosting business can explain?

I know Zen blocked such traffic (when I asked in 2021) at the perimeter 
firewall, so there was no access to webmail, IMAP & SMTP servers, or the 
customer portal.  Their sales website was still visible and shows their 
phone number.


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57276

On 21/05/2026 12:34, Graham J wrote:
> Jeff Gaines wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something 
>> that you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.
> 
> Be aware that most mobile networks use CGNAT.  Professional email 
> services may reject connections coming from CGNAT because it allows 
> multiple users per public IP, and some of those users will (perhaps 
> unkowingly) send "unsavoury material".
> 
> It is possible to get a static public IP but it won't be at the entry 
> level price.
> 
> 

I have a CGNAT connection in Spain and its useless with Eternal 
September as it limits the connections per IP address and as many are 
sharing the same IP address it continually resets...

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57268

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> I have just spoken to EE about this.
> 
> I can get 4G in the village and was offered 2 packages:
> 
> 100 Mb/s unlimited downloads £35 per month
> Max speed (whatever the SIM supports) unlimited downloads £43 per month
> 
> I currently get 12 Mb/s over my landline so the potential speed is a dream.
> 
> Problem is the connections is via a small box that you can take from room 
> to room and connect to via WiFi so whenever I want to use the Internet I 
> have to connect (up to 5 devices a time).

I would recommend a wired router like this one:
https://www.argos.co.uk/product/8787662

It also has ethernet ports for the LAN. 

> At the moment I feed the connection into my powerline so it's available in 
> any room and the router also has WiFi so any device can connect via WiFi.
> 
> Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that 
> you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

Be aware that the bandwidth can be very variable and I'd take the 100 mbps
speed with a chunk of salt. 

FTR I use smarty with my setup. £15 pm for 150MB. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57273

On 2026-05-21 10:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> 
> I have just spoken to EE about this.
> 
> I can get 4G in the village and was offered 2 packages:
> 
> 100 Mb/s unlimited downloads £35 per month
> Max speed (whatever the SIM supports) unlimited downloads £43 per month
> 
> I currently get 12 Mb/s over my landline so the potential speed is a dream.
> 
> Problem is the connections is via a small box that you can take from 
> room to room and connect to via WiFi so whenever I want to use the 
> Internet I have to connect (up to 5 devices a time).
> 
> At the moment I feed the connection into my powerline so it's available 
> in any room and the router also has WiFi so any device can connect via 
> WiFi.
> 
> Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that 
> you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

Up here in the Highlands of Sutherland, my first mobile internet was 
from Virgin, but they upped the price unacceptably, so then I was with 
Three for a while, 'til they played silly buggers with all their 
customers and their accounts, probably a preamble part of merging with 
Vodafone.  So then I switched over to iD Mobile in mid-2024, an MVNO 
running over the Three network, but, although as a customer I've not yet 
received any communication about my service being affected in any way, I 
thought that before pontificating about it I ought to check the status 
of things wrt the merger:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=what+network+do+iD+Mobile+run+over+in+the+UK

"iD Mobile operates over the Three mobile network in the UK.

Additionally, because of the merger between Three UK and Vodafone UK to 
form VodafoneThree, iD Mobile is currently integrating its services with 
the Vodafone network. This allows your device to automatically switch 
between the Three and Vodafone networks to deliver improved coverage and 
stronger signals."

Doubtless I will about any changes or improvements to the service in due 
course.

I pay iD Mobile £15pm for unlimited downloads, which price has been 
constant since I joined them.  I get pretty consistently around 20Mbps 
up and down, though the latter tends to start off somewhat slower, and a 
ping time of 49ms, but I ought to report that at times of very heavy 
precipitation these speeds can drop significantly.

As far as the service itself goes, the only grumble I have is that they 
seem to drop unused connections quickly, and Thunderbird when used as a 
news reader cannot handle this.  Thus after any sort of short break 
receiving &/or sending new posts nearly always fail the first time, I 
have to wait for the process to time-out before trying again, usually 
successfully on the second occasion.  This is very irritating, but at 
least seemingly it's confined to Thunderbird when used as a news reader, 
it doesn't happen when Thunderbird is used with email, and AFAIAA there 
are no other problems with iD Mobile's service.  Their website is pretty 
good, and their bills are clear and consistent.

For my router, I used to have a DrayTek Vigor 2830n, into which one 
could plug a USB WWAN dongle with a SIM card, but I used find that 
occasionally the service would be lost and I'd have to reboot the entire 
router to restore it, which obviously was very disruptive to anything 
else happening over the LAN.  Now, thanks to Andy Burns' suggestion, I 
use a hacked BT Home Hub 5a, with a USB stick on an extension lead high 
up in a window facing the mast, and the results are much more consistent 
and satisfactory.  There are very occasional glitches, but nothing 
really to complain about compared to the DrayTek or, far worse, the near 
useless landline connection I used to have.  At the time I wrote a long 
post on how to hack these routers which I will post again on request, or 
perhaps you may still be able to get used ones ready hacked on eBay.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom.broadband

csiph-web