6 posts • joined 31 Aug 2007
it must have been 170ft long...
Or it could have been the size of a pigeon but stationary...
How do some people end up with logic like this...
Stop, because the turbine stopped.
the security is reasonably good, there are a few holes, I believe they are looking at implementing biometric access which should make things much better and easier to manage. Last time we went our steering wheel got wiped to check for explosives. We've not had any issue with power in there, if you want the best connections, low latency and the lowest hops to the largest numbers of UK customers then telehouse is where you need to be.
There are some positive points here, more than I was expecting by far. But as far as I'm concerned if my web browser makes a request for www.google.com any packets related to that request should go direct to the destination, no information other than that required to route the packet correctly (Destination IP, ttl) should be read by ANY intervening party (even ISP web cache's included here). This should be the same principal used for ANY protocol. and ensures an open and free internet. If the ISP's can't afford to provide the service they are providing they should up their subscription fees, not sell data contained in packets they should not be looking at onto third parties.
It might just be web pages now, but what if they started reading POP3 traffic? even with the privacy guards they have in place, which do sound quite good, it would be a negligable task to redirect the first recieve a client makes, and deliver a targetted spam email.
If we start giving away our freedom on the web then other protocols would follow, it's only logical. This cannot be allowed to happen. The fact that a browser has to make two requests is very likely to slow down the end user experience. There shouldn't be a requirement to opt out with a cookie.
However, I applaud phorm for being open about this. I expect that I'll just end up one of a hardcore of users that feel this way and want to have nothing whatsoever to do with the service. For this reason I urge phorm to be open and disclose the following details;
Any IP address ranges associated with the phorm service, that users being tracked would normally connect to, either at phorm or at the ISP directly. with the view that this hardcore of users would like to block the service at our routers, not by using a cookie.
I'd also like to see a discussion on what / how the above would work (I'm assuming it would), and the advantages / disadvantages compared to doing it at the cookie level, published, on your site, so that less technical users can make an informed descision.
Let us know how you get on.
anyone else having a problem post it here any maybe we can take a look and throw ina few pointers?
Took a quick look at their setup.
The A record for the MX, the Hostname in the SMTP greeting, and the PTR don't match. get them all matching and the likelyhood of getting mail through will be much higher. Can't guaruntee it will work for yahoo, but some mail servers will definately be blocking their mail on the above points.
The MX dissapeared ages ago......
freenet.co.uk and wannado don't even have MX records any more.
Infact, i know of people blocking mail from these domains on the basis that there can't be any legitimate senders using them.....