Prev: WinXP won't clear the DNS cache (can it be cleared manually)?
Next: What does the DNS Client service actually do?
From: Char Jackson on 29 Mar 2010 20:20
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:11:20 -0400, "Whistleblower" <Justice(a)USA.con>
wrote:

>Yes, I finally have my own domain, but att. still is stuck in my email
>address

You can change your email address whenever and as often as you'd like.
Why are you stuck?

From: Whistleblower on 30 Mar 2010 15:17
"Char Jackson" <none(a)none.invalid> wrote in message
news:oqg2r5totamoqt2ntrj4se208pg3itm0om(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:11:20 -0400, "Whistleblower" <Justice(a)USA.con>
> wrote:
>
>>Yes, I finally have my own domain, but att. still is stuck in my email
>>address
>
> You can change your email address whenever and as often as you'd like.
> Why are you stuck?

Because many contacts, some from years ago, must be able to reach me at the
same email address I have used in the past.
That email address is also, like my now useless old URL, on business cards,
website links, and in hard-copy publications.


From: Char Jackson on 30 Mar 2010 15:28
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:17:03 -0400, "Whistleblower" <Justice(a)USA.con>
wrote:

>"Char Jackson" <none(a)none.invalid> wrote in message
>news:oqg2r5totamoqt2ntrj4se208pg3itm0om(a)4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:11:20 -0400, "Whistleblower" <Justice(a)USA.con>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, I finally have my own domain, but att. still is stuck in my email
>>>address
>>
>> You can change your email address whenever and as often as you'd like.
>> Why are you stuck?
>
>Because many contacts, some from years ago, must be able to reach me at the
>same email address I have used in the past.
>That email address is also, like my now useless old URL, on business cards,
>website links, and in hard-copy publications.

OK, I think you know what you did wrong and there's nothing to be
gained by rubbing salt in the wound. If/when att decides to dump their
email service, I guess you'll have a bit of work to do, but it's
nothing that hundreds of thousands haven't done before you. These
days, people take email changes in stride, for the most part.

From: Dark Fox on 27 Apr 2010 02:12
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.internet.wireless.]
On 2010-03-29, Jordon <jordon(a)REMOVE~THISmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> Whistleblower wrote:
>
>> For a business, the website customer-screwing by AT&T is the worst of all. I
>> had my site for years and it had a high ranking with the search engines -
>> top10. Now I have been FORCED to move it to another host with a new URL
>> unknown to the search engines.
>
> With the cost of domains and hosting services being so low why
> would anyone even consider using an ISP for those things? I
> got tired of changing my personal address when changing ISP's
> ten years ago so I got my own domain just for the email address.
> I pay about $50 a year for the domain, a place to host it and
> email. And I'm sure I could find something cheaper than that.
>

Why not just use a new e-mail address and have all of your e-mail from
your old address forwarded to your new address? Old contacts can stay
in contact, give out business cards with the new address.. Have your
cake and eat it too.


Thanks,
Dark Fox
04.27.2010-01:11


Thanks,
Dark Fox
04.27.2010-01:12
From: Robert Feeple on 28 Apr 2010 02:25
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:52:06 -0400, Whistleblower wrote:

> BEWARE OF and AVOID doing business with AT&T!

Are you aware that AT&T "died" Jan. 1, 2006?

> AT&T exemplifies screw-the-consumer corporate arrogance at its worst.
> DO NOT PATRONIZE AT&T or YOU'LL REGRET IT!
>
> I had an ISP service package with AT&T Worldnet that included email, DSL, a
> personal website on their server, and Usenet access.

AT&T Worldnet DSL Service never provisioned a loop. You probably had Covad
DSL service, as resold by AT&T Worldnet.

> Suddenly they dropped the Usenet service, with no compensation to customers
> that were forced to find another source.

"They" were SBC management (considering that SBC bought AT&T, including the
right to use their name). SBC support opined that Usenet was a "value-added"
service, and not included in the cost of the SBCIS (SBC Internet Services)
product.

> Another example of their screw-the-customer attitude is the fact that reaching
> a tech support person by phone typically requires at least a 20 minute wait on
> hold.

Last time I called, I got right through, but was carried into an automate
maze of selections which often made no sense.

> AT&T once had a good tech support service on Usenet, but dropped that too and
> became very hard to reach.

AT&T died on Jan. 1, 2006, when SBC took over the company. SBC never had
good tech support for Usenet. Even Prodigy and SNET (Southern New England
Telephone; both of which were bought by SBC) user complained about how
things went down hill after SBC took over.

> I should have seen the writing on the wall and dropped AT&T back then!

Probably should have dropped AT&T on Jan. 1, 2006, when SBC took over.

--
Norman
~Shine, bright morning light,
~now in the air the spring is coming.
~Sweet, blowing wind,
~singing down the hills and valleys.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: WinXP won't clear the DNS cache (can it be cleared manually)?
Next: What does the DNS Client service actually do?