Media Player 12 Very Hash Picture Quality

[Gene E. Bloch]

No. I have seen a number of posts on Usenet telling various posters that
their fake-seeming domains were actually valid domains.

Don't ask - I haven't kept a record of them

OTOH, in this very thread, Char Jackson has pointed out one:
unknown.com. And he further pointed out to Dave that invalid is supposed
to be last in the domain name (i.e. it's the top-level domain).

 

[Ken Blake]

OTOH, in this very thread, Char Jackson has pointed out one:
unknown.com. And he further pointed out to Dave that invalid is supposed
to be last in the domain name (i.e. it's the top-level domain).

Your point is well understood, and what Char Jackson pointed out is
correct. But it's still hard for me to imagine that my domain
this.is.invalid.com could ever be a valid domain.

 

[Char Jackson]

Your point is well understood, and what Char Jackson pointed out is
correct. But it's still hard for me to imagine that my domain
this.is.invalid.com could ever be a valid domain.

D:\>ping invalid.com

Pinging invalid.com [64.187.101.62] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 64.187.101.62:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 63ms, Maximum = 63ms, Average = 63ms

Hmmm, since invalid.com apparently exists, (I didn't check whois
records or anything, just this quick ping), it suddenly starts to seem
a little more feasible that this.is.invalid.com could come into being.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Your point is well understood, and what Char Jackson pointed out is
correct. But it's still hard for me to imagine that my domain
this.is.invalid.com could ever be a valid domain.

D:\>ping invalid.com

Pinging invalid.com [64.187.101.62] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
Reply from 64.187.101.62: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 64.187.101.62:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 63ms, Maximum = 63ms, Average = 63ms

Hmmm, since invalid.com apparently exists, (I didn't check whois
records or anything, just this quick ping), it suddenly starts to seem
a little more feasible that this.is.invalid.com could come into being.

Yes, but *you* are not in denial

 

[Dave]

It will be sent to the return address that I have configured my e-mail
client (Agent) to use. In my case, as you can see from the above,
that's (e-mail address removed).

As you might guess, that's not my real e-mail address, and it
presumably is an address that doesn't exist. So the result will be
that you will get an error message to that effect.

Feel free to try it, and reply to (e-mail address removed).

The message I sent via the "Reply" button bounced.

 

[Dave]

The .invalid is more or less supposed to be at the end of the address,
not in the middle...

I don't know if .unk is a valid domain, (too lazy to check), but if
it's not, it probably could be in the future.

Point taken.

 

[Dave]

Sorry but if spammer's have already harvested your email address, then
it's too late. In a sense it's like closing the barn door after the
horse got out.


--

Roy Smith
Windows 7 Professional
Thunderbird 3.1.3
Sunday, September 12, 2010 5:21:58 AM

It's probably already harvested. Setting the junk mail filters keeps most of
it under control, hopefully over time the spammers will stop using it.

 

[Ken Blake]

The message I sent via the "Reply" button bounced.

Yep. My point exactly.

 

[Ken Blake]

Yes, but *you* are not in denial

So you think I'm in denial?

I've already acknowledged that, as you said, "invalid" is the proper
way to do this. But I've also pointed out that "this.is.invalid.com"
is essentially just as good, since it's *highly* unlikely that it will
ever come into being as a real domain.

Yes, I could change my return address's domain from
"this.is.invalid.com" to "invalid," and maybe I will some day, when I
have the time to do it (it would have to be done in more places than
you probably realize, so I haven't taken the time to do it yet). But
since there is unlikely to be any problem with the domain I use, I see
no need to rush to do this.

 

[Char Jackson]

So you think I'm in denial?

I've already acknowledged that, as you said, "invalid" is the proper
way to do this. But I've also pointed out that "this.is.invalid.com"
is essentially just as good, since it's *highly* unlikely that it will
ever come into being as a real domain.

Yes, I could change my return address's domain from
"this.is.invalid.com" to "invalid," and maybe I will some day, when I
have the time to do it (it would have to be done in more places than
you probably realize, so I haven't taken the time to do it yet). But
since there is unlikely to be any problem with the domain I use, I see
no need to rush to do this.

I'm not a system admin and have no skin in the game, but in another
group that I follow the sysadmin's would bristle at comments like
yours. Since the domain (invalid.com) does indeed exist, that means
that spam addressed to "this.is.invalid.com" goes to that domain and
needs to be handled there. It takes up bandwidth and resources.

 

[Dave]

Yep. My point exactly.

I should have been more detailed, I was trying to say that I got what you
had said about it would bounce due to the invalid email addy.
Thanks to all for the tips, I have modified my address in kind in hopes of
preventing some of the spam that is sent by the address farmers.
Dave

 

[Ken Blake]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:50:54 -0700, Ken Blake


I'm not a system admin and have no skin in the game, but in another
group that I follow the sysadmin's would bristle at comments like
yours. Since the domain (invalid.com) does indeed exist, that means
that spam addressed to "this.is.invalid.com" goes to that domain and
needs to be handled there. It takes up bandwidth and resources.

OK, I finally decided to go to the trouble of changing the return
address domains, and I've done so. Again, I don't see it as necessary,
but I did it anyway, so there's no longer any need to complain to me
about it.

 

[Char Jackson]

OK, I finally decided to go to the trouble of changing the return
address domains, and I've done so. Again, I don't see it as necessary,
but I did it anyway, so there's no longer any need to complain to me
about it.

 

[Ken Blake]

Glad to make you happy about it (especially since I didn't have to do
it in as many places as I thought I did).

And ultimately, you and Gene Bloch are right about it (although I
still think it's a very minor issue).

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Glad to make you happy about it (especially since I didn't have to do
it in as many places as I thought I did).

And ultimately, you and Gene Bloch are right about it (although I
still think it's a very minor issue).

You think it's minor because you are not the owner of a domain that, by
an unfortunate coincidence, someone else made up in an attempt to avoid
spam.

To answer an earlier question, yes, I do think you are (still) in
denial, but I thank you for your grudging acceptance of the recommended
changes.

 

[Ken Blake]

You think it's minor because you are not the owner of a domain that, by
an unfortunate coincidence, someone else made up in an attempt to avoid
spam.

To answer an earlier question, yes, I do think you are (still) in
denial, but I thank you for your grudging acceptance of the recommended
changes.

Have it your way. I'm not interested in arguing with you over what to
me in an insignificant issue. End of thread, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Have it your way. I'm not interested in arguing with you over what to
me in an insignificant issue.

[ ]

End of thread, as far as I'm concerned.

I knew that a long time ago