router with ipv6
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: Article about home wireless "congestion"
Next: Weekly Deals from OfficeMAX hurry sale ends January 30th
From: Moe Trin on 31 Jan 2010 16:58 On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article <tlkbm5pcs9ajmq0dhm9sgt11spmljkllhu(a)4ax.com>, John Navas wrote: >Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> ibuprofin(a)painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote >>>> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically >>>> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server. >>> Nonsense. You are welcome to your own opinions. Many people find the large quantities of spamvertisements posted from googlegroups.com objectionable, and the absolute refusal of google to control that abuse as grounds for filtering all posts from that source - spam or not. >> Google Groups more likely. If only because so many people (such as >> myself) have blocked GG entirely because of the spammer problems. >Nobody cares that you and a few others choose to engage in such >silliness. The "shark" may be gone, but "The Usenet Improvement Project" is still reachable at http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/index.html. Some people apply a very simple rule to their news reading or spooling tool (syntax may vary - see your documentation): [*] Score:: =-9999 Message-ID: googlegroups.com Just because your news reader can't do that doesn't mean others can't as well. Additionally, some news _providers_ filter all posts from google. That is the reason I've set my news reader to automatically include that "NOTE:" whenever I reply to a post from googlegroups.com. Old guy
From: alexd on 31 Jan 2010 17:15 Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, Moe Trin chose the tried and tested strategy of: >>Apparently in China, some internet users are behind many layers of >>NAT > I'm not sure that I'd pick on China (or India) - as both are > comparatively undeveloped, but multi-layer NAT doesn't sound very > likely. The statistics you supply are interesting, but don't help me estimate whether the average number of NAT layers as supplied on internet connections by ISPs higher in China than in the UK. Having thought some more, it does seem less likely as there are only so many people you can have behind a single public IP address [depending on their propensity to open connections, and keep them open]. -- <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm(a)ale.cx) 21:10:55 up 11 days, 12 min, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 DIMENSION-CONTROLLING FORT DOH HAS NOW BEEN DEMOLISHED, AND TIME STARTED FLOWING REVERSELY
From: John Navas on 1 Feb 2010 12:00 On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:07:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <calee(a)optonline.net> wrote in <t5lbm5p2sqqo8bf3jbt6dkjcsh1o4s4rem(a)4ax.com>: >On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:59:40 -0800, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:27:38 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> >>wrote in <yPSdnQOCnNUWIPjWnZ2dnUVZ_spi4p2d(a)earthlink.com>: >> >>>In article <leebm51v96n47e956mq7fsgorgme900und(a)4ax.com>, >>> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:12:35 -0600, >>>> ibuprofin(a)painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote in >>>> <slrnhm78sr.1dm.ibuprofin(a)compton.phx.az.us>: >>>> >>>> >NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically >>>> >reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server. >>>> >>>> Nonsense. >>> >>> Google Groups more likely. If only because so many people (such as >>>myself) have blocked GG entirely because of the spammer problems. >> >>Nobody cares that you and a few others choose to engage in such >>silliness. > >Trolling? No. >Plenty of us block google with a higher proprity retrieve on specific >posters. How many is "plenty" exactly, and what percentage of total users? >It reduces traffic by about two thirds, mostly spam. Suit yourself. Way too many false positives for my taste. -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us> John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
From: John Navas on 1 Feb 2010 12:01 On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:58:37 -0600, ibuprofin(a)painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote in <slrnhmbv8b.csc.ibuprofin(a)compton.phx.az.us>: >On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article ><tlkbm5pcs9ajmq0dhm9sgt11spmljkllhu(a)4ax.com>, John Navas wrote: > >>Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>>> ibuprofin(a)painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote > >>>>> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically >>>>> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server. > >>>> Nonsense. > >You are welcome to your own opinions. Many people find the large >quantities of spamvertisements posted from googlegroups.com objectionable, >and the absolute refusal of google to control that abuse as grounds for >filtering all posts from that source - spam or not. How "many" exactly, and what percentage of total users? -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us> John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
From: Moe Trin on 1 Feb 2010 22:06
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article <l52em5l6eg55jdnd5hv12pck6g7u2p5aqv(a)4ax.com>, John Navas wrote: >(Moe Trin) wrote: >>>> John Navas wrote: >>>>> ibuprofin(a)painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote >>>>>> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically >>>>> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server. >>>>> Nonsense. >>You are welcome to your own opinions. Many people find the large >>quantities of spamvertisements posted from googlegroups.com objectionable, >>and the absolute refusal of google to control that abuse as grounds for >>filtering all posts from that source - spam or not. >How "many" exactly, and what percentage of total users? Who knows or cares - it's quite obviously non-zero. Do you have figures for total readership of all newsgroups? Of the few who bothered to respond to your post here, it looks as if your "Nonsense" response is Nonsense - and yes, I also filter posts from googlegroups.com in several of the Usenet groups I try to scan daily. Old guy |