| A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183006] |
Wed, 02 October 2013 19:07  |
bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
Using it would be violating your tos and/or aup by your ISP for
impersonation.
It's also for sale: But if you like being associated with the following:
-----------
[Querying whois.verisign-grs.com]
[Redirected to whois.networksolutions.com]
[Querying whois.networksolutions.com]
[whois.networksolutions.com]
Welcome to the Network Solutions(R) Registrar WHOIS Server.
The IP address from which you have visited the Network Solutions
Registrar WHOIS
database is contained within a list of IP addresses that may have failed
to abide by Network Solutions' WHOIS policy. Failure to abide by this
policy can
adversely impact our systems and servers, preventing the processing of
other WHOIS requests.
To see the Network Solutions WHOIS Policy, click on or copy and paste
the following
URL into your browser:
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jhtml
If you feel that you have received this message in error, please email
us using the online
form at http://www.networksolutions.com/help/email.jsp with the
following information:
Whois Query: invalid.com
YOUR IP address is 198.171.79.36
Date and Time of Query: Wed Oct 02 14:08:30 EDT 2013
Reason Code: IE
--------------
Go ahead and keep using it. I'd think twice about associating myself
with them, though.
My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out! Or
better yet, use one of the thousands of addresses set up for just that
purpose; they're all over the place and many from reputable company
sources, too. Beware the scammers though, as in all things internet.
I haven't looked in years, but heypete.com used to have a lot of them
available, and spamcop.NET maintains a couple also. As do many other
places, or even create your own freebie and just never use the account.
HTH
Twayne`
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183008 is a reply to message #183006] |
Wed, 02 October 2013 19:46  |
Fiver
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 2013-10-02 21:07, Twayne wrote:
> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
>
> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>
> Using it would be violating your tos and/or aup by your ISP for
> impersonation.
>
> It's also for sale: [snip whois]
> My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out!
Dolts?
..invalid is a reserved top level domain for exactly this purpose:
| ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
| names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
| glance are invalid.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606
I don't know where you read "invalid.com". It was certainly not in the
message you replied to earlier.
5er
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183009 is a reply to message #183006] |
Wed, 02 October 2013 19:49 |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Twayne wrote:
> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
>
> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
Better is to use example.com as it is designed for the purpose. Even
better than that is example.invalid
Any made-up user name to the left of the @ that uses a valid domain name
to the right will flood the server of the owner of that valid domain,
regardless if the user name is legitimate or not.
Thanks for pointing out this problem.
--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183011 is a reply to message #183008] |
Wed, 02 October 2013 22:07 |
Peter H. Coffin
Messages: 245
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:46:57 +0200, Fiver wrote:
> On 2013-10-02 21:07, Twayne wrote:
>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
>>
>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>>
>> Using it would be violating your tos and/or aup by your ISP for
>> impersonation.
>>
>> It's also for sale: [snip whois]
>
>> My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out!
>
> Dolts?
>
> .invalid is a reserved top level domain for exactly this purpose:
"invalid.com" != ".invalid"
--
The Write Many, Read Never drive. For those people that don't know
their system has a /dev/null already.
-- Rik Steenwinkel, singing the praises of 8mm Exabytes
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183012 is a reply to message #183011] |
Wed, 02 October 2013 22:31 |
Fiver
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 2013-10-03 00:07, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:46:57 +0200, Fiver wrote:
>> On 2013-10-02 21:07, Twayne wrote:
>>> My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out!
>>
>> Dolts?
>>
>> .invalid is a reserved top level domain for exactly this purpose:
>
> "invalid.com" != ".invalid"
My point precisely. Nobody here was using "invalid.com".
5er
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183014 is a reply to message #183011] |
Thu, 03 October 2013 00:02 |
bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2013-10-02 6:07 PM, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:46:57 +0200, Fiver wrote:
>> On 2013-10-02 21:07, Twayne wrote:
>>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
>>>
>>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>>>
>>> Using it would be violating your tos and/or aup by your ISP for
>>> impersonation.
>>>
>>> It's also for sale: [snip whois]
>>
>>> My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out!
>>
>> Dolts?
>>
>> .invalid is a reserved top level domain for exactly this purpose:
>
> "invalid.com" != ".invalid"
>
You obviously didn't bother to try to access invalid.com, did you?
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183015 is a reply to message #183012] |
Thu, 03 October 2013 00:03 |
bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2013-10-02 6:31 PM, Fiver wrote:
> On 2013-10-03 00:07, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:46:57 +0200, Fiver wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-02 21:07, Twayne wrote:
>>>> My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out!
>>>
>>> Dolts?
>>>
>>> .invalid is a reserved top level domain for exactly this purpose:
>>
>> "invalid.com" != ".invalid"
>
> My point precisely. Nobody here was using "invalid.com".
>
> 5er
>
A quick search of my archives showed it uniquely listed 26 times; so ...
And that's just here; not any of the other ngs's.
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183016 is a reply to message #183015] |
Thu, 03 October 2013 00:23 |
Fiver
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 2013-10-03 02:03, Twayne wrote:
> On 2013-10-02 6:31 PM, Fiver wrote:
>> On 2013-10-03 00:07, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>> "invalid.com" != ".invalid"
>>
>> My point precisely. Nobody here was using "invalid.com".
> A quick search of my archives showed it uniquely listed 26 times; so ...
Must have been a while ago. I only loaded 2k headers going back to
January this year, and there are no occurrences of invalid.com. I have
no doubt that your archives are more extensive, so I defer to your
judgement about the need for a public service announcement.
regards,
5er
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183018 is a reply to message #183016] |
Thu, 03 October 2013 02:49 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/2/2013 8:23 PM, Fiver wrote:
> On 2013-10-03 02:03, Twayne wrote:
>> On 2013-10-02 6:31 PM, Fiver wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-03 00:07, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>>> "invalid.com" != ".invalid"
>>>
>>> My point precisely. Nobody here was using "invalid.com".
>
>> A quick search of my archives showed it uniquely listed 26 times; so ...
>
> Must have been a while ago. I only loaded 2k headers going back to
> January this year, and there are no occurrences of invalid.com. I have
> no doubt that your archives are more extensive, so I defer to your
> judgement about the need for a public service announcement.
>
> regards,
> 5er
>
Don't worry about it. Twayne is just a well-known troll in this newsgroup.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183022 is a reply to message #183008] |
Thu, 03 October 2013 17:36 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Fiver wrote:
> On 2013-10-02 21:07, Twayne wrote:
>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
>>
>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>>
>> Using it would be violating your tos and/or aup by your ISP for
>> impersonation.
>>
>> It's also for sale: [snip whois]
>
>> My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out!
>
> Dolts?
>
> .invalid is a reserved top level domain for exactly this purpose:
>
> | ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
> | names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
> | glance are invalid.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606
And for those who can read, it is proposed under
| 2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples
It is _not_ proposed under “2. TLDs for anti-social address munging in
Usenet because you are not smart enough to deal with your incoming spam”.
<http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>
> I don't know where you read "invalid.com". It was certainly not in the
> message you replied to earlier.
I would not know, .invalid & friends go to /dev/null automagically here.
And postings without real name are scored down the same way.
F'up2 news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
PointedEars
--
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183025 is a reply to message #183016] |
Thu, 03 October 2013 18:06 |
bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2013-10-02 8:23 PM, Fiver wrote:
> On 2013-10-03 02:03, Twayne wrote:
>> On 2013-10-02 6:31 PM, Fiver wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-03 00:07, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>>> "invalid.com" != ".invalid"
>>>
>>> My point precisely. Nobody here was using "invalid.com".
>
>> A quick search of my archives showed it uniquely listed 26 times; so ...
>
> Must have been a while ago. I only loaded 2k headers going back to
> January this year, and there are no occurrences of invalid.com. I have
> no doubt that your archives are more extensive, so I defer to your
> judgement about the need for a public service announcement.
>
> regards,
> 5er
>
Hi 5,
Not wanting to make you "defer"; just making a statement. I had
hoped people would just try the URL and maybe look them up on whois or
their fav place. The only point was to get folks to use something made
for the purpose - and not make up addresses on a whim.
Twayne`
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183031 is a reply to message #183009] |
Fri, 04 October 2013 02:40 |
Mr Oldies
Messages: 241
Registered: October 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:49:34 +0000 (UTC), Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Twayne wrote:
>
>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
>>
>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>
> Better is to use example.com as it is designed for the purpose. Even
> better than that is example.invalid
>
> Any made-up user name to the left of the @ that uses a valid domain name
> to the right will flood the server of the owner of that valid domain,
> regardless if the user name is legitimate or not.
>
> Thanks for pointing out this problem.
Really? I wasn't aware that simply posting an addy cause email to be sent
to that addy.
Is this some new feature of usenet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183033 is a reply to message #183031] |
Fri, 04 October 2013 03:50 |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
richard @shut.the.fuck.up.stupid wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Twayne wrote:
>>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail
>>> addresses:
>>>
>>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>>
>> Better is to use example.com as it is designed for the purpose. Even
>> better than that is example.invalid
>>
>> Any made-up user name to the left of the @ that uses a valid domain
>> name to the right will flood the server of the owner of that valid
>> domain, regardless if the user name is legitimate or not.
>>
>> Thanks for pointing out this problem.
>
> Really?
Yes, bullis, really.
> I wasn't aware that simply posting an addy cause email to be
> sent to that addy.
> Is this some new feature of usenet?
In all your years, I suppose it is possible that you have never heard of
email address harvesting on Usenet by spammers. Okay, I get that. You've
learned something new tonight.
BTW, bullis(at)shut(dot)the(dot)fuck(dot)up(dot)stupid will still cause the servers the
spammers use to attempt to *send* mail to shut.the.fuck.up.stupid. They
will *not* attempt to send to example.com or something.invalid (because
they are configured that way).
--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183034 is a reply to message #183032] |
Fri, 04 October 2013 07:32 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 04/10/13 03:44, richard wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 15:07:06 -0400, Twayne wrote:
>
>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
>>
>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>
> BARF!
>
> Just use a TLD that isn't registered.
> such as @shut.the.fuck.up.stupid
>
THAT will cause the ROOT servres to be questioned every time.
anti-social.
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183035 is a reply to message #183033] |
Fri, 04 October 2013 08:08 |
Mr Oldies
Messages: 241
Registered: October 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 03:50:55 +0000 (UTC), Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> richard @shut.the.fuck.up.stupid wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail
>>>> addresses:
>>>>
>>>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>>>
>>> Better is to use example.com as it is designed for the purpose. Even
>>> better than that is example.invalid
>>>
>>> Any made-up user name to the left of the @ that uses a valid domain
>>> name to the right will flood the server of the owner of that valid
>>> domain, regardless if the user name is legitimate or not.
>>>
>>> Thanks for pointing out this problem.
>>
>> Really?
>
> Yes, bullis, really.
>
>> I wasn't aware that simply posting an addy cause email to be
>> sent to that addy.
>> Is this some new feature of usenet?
>
> In all your years, I suppose it is possible that you have never heard of
> email address harvesting on Usenet by spammers. Okay, I get that. You've
> learned something new tonight.
>
> BTW, bullis(at)shut(dot)the(dot)fuck(dot)up(dot)stupid will still cause the servers the
> spammers use to attempt to *send* mail to shut.the.fuck.up.stupid. They
> will *not* attempt to send to example.com or something.invalid (because
> they are configured that way).
Yes you have it wrong.
Usenet addy's by themselves DO NOT send email.
They are collected and abused by spammers.
Which is why I have NEVER used my real addy.
mail(at)newsguy(dot)com
Is a valid addy.
Which I did use, with permission.
I was told that since it is not active, any mail sent to it is
automagically trashed.
And then there are the more sophisticated spammers who will use programs to
crack your login password so they can send mail as if it came from you.
I know. I've been hit twice that way.
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183036 is a reply to message #183035] |
Fri, 04 October 2013 12:55 |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
richard the sto0pid wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> richard @shut.the.fuck.up.stupid wrote:
>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>> > Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail
>>>> > addresses:
>>>> >
>>>> > invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>>>>
>>>> Better is to use example.com as it is designed for the purpose. Even
>>>> better than that is example.invalid
>>>>
>>>> Any made-up user name to the left of the @ that uses a valid domain
>>>> name to the right will flood the server of the owner of that valid
>>>> domain, regardless if the user name is legitimate or not.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for pointing out this problem.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>
>> Yes, bullis, really.
>>
>>> I wasn't aware that simply posting an addy cause email to be sent to
>>> that addy.
>>> Is this some new feature of usenet?
>>
>> In all your years, I suppose it is possible that you have never heard
>> of email address harvesting on Usenet by spammers. Okay, I get that.
>> You've learned something new tonight.
>>
>> BTW, bullis(at)shut(dot)the(dot)fuck(dot)up(dot)stupid will still cause the servers the
>> spammers use to attempt to *send* mail to shut.the.fuck.up.stupid. They
>> will *not* attempt to send to example.com or something.invalid (because
>> they are configured that way).
>
> Yes you have it wrong.
> Usenet addy's by themselves DO NOT send email.
> They are collected and abused by spammers.
Well, duh! Is that some sort of backpedalling statement? What part of
"harvesting" was too far over your brow?
> Which is why I have NEVER used my real addy.
> mail(at)newsguy(dot)com Is a valid addy.
> Which I did use, with permission.
> I was told that since it is not active, any mail sent to it is
> automagically trashed.
Sure, the mail can be trashed. The idea with using an .invalid TLD is to
prevent the *sending* of any mail *in the first place.* Why clog the pipe
if you don't have to?
> And then there are the more sophisticated spammers who will use programs
> to crack your login password so they can send mail as if it came from
> you.
> I know. I've been hit twice that way.
...none of which has anything to do with the topic being discussed.
--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183039 is a reply to message #183038] |
Fri, 04 October 2013 14:04 |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Denis McMahon wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Okay, I get that. You've learned something new tonight.
>
> Your comment presumes that he is capable of learning anything. Archives
> of this group suggest otherwise.
I understand. I suppose I was having a benevolent moment when I wrote
that. I'll try to do better in the future. :-)
--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183041 is a reply to message #183031] |
Fri, 04 October 2013 23:30 |
bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2013-10-03 10:40 PM, richard wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:49:34 +0000 (UTC), Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> Twayne wrote:
>>
>>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
>>>
>>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>>
>> Better is to use example.com as it is designed for the purpose. Even
>> better than that is example.invalid
>>
>> Any made-up user name to the left of the @ that uses a valid domain name
>> to the right will flood the server of the owner of that valid domain,
>> regardless if the user name is legitimate or not.a
>>
>> Thanks for pointing out this problem.
>
> Really? I wasn't aware that simply posting an addy cause email to be sent
> to that addy.
> Is this some new feature of usenet?
>
No, it's an issue that's been around since the beginnings of today's
version of e-mails.
But at the same time all ISPs simply drop junk mails, where they
have no recipient, on the floor and add them to lists people can
subscribe to of known spammers' addresses after they've been traced.
Very few of them accept the mail and try to deliver it anywhere. But at
the same time if there IS a valid recipient, the ISPs try to decide
whether it's spam or not and just notify the user that they caught a
spam which they can look at if they wish for a short period of time. It
helps their customer's e-mail boxes by keeping out many spam sources
from being delivered.
Twayne`
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183042 is a reply to message #183033] |
Fri, 04 October 2013 23:33 |
bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2013-10-03 11:50 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> richard @shut.the.fuck.up.stupid wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail
>>>> addresses:
>>>>
>>>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>>>
>>> Better is to use example.com as it is designed for the purpose. Even
>>> better than that is example.invalid
>>>
>>> Any made-up user name to the left of the @ that uses a valid domain
>>> name to the right will flood the server of the owner of that valid
>>> domain, regardless if the user name is legitimate or not.
>>>
>>> Thanks for pointing out this problem.
>>
>> Really?
>
> Yes, bullis, really.
>
>> I wasn't aware that simply posting an addy cause email to be
>> sent to that addy.
>> Is this some new feature of usenet?
>
> In all your years, I suppose it is possible that you have never heard of
> email address harvesting on Usenet by spammers. Okay, I get that. You've
> learned something new tonight.
>
> BTW, bullis(at)shut(dot)the(dot)fuck(dot)up(dot)stupid will still cause the servers the
> spammers use to attempt to *send* mail to shut.the.fuck.up.stupid. They
> will *not* attempt to send to example.com or something.invalid (because
> they are configured that way).
>
You forget, invalid.com will load into your browser; they used to have
email addresses too, before the registrars started threatening them.
example.com is in the same boat with several derivatives already
floating around.
Bass turds like you abound around the 'net.
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183051 is a reply to message #183042] |
Sat, 05 October 2013 18:54 |
Peter H. Coffin
Messages: 245
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 19:33:28 -0400, Twayne wrote:
> You forget, invalid.com will load into your browser; they used to have
> email addresses too, before the registrars started threatening them.
> example.com is in the same boat with several derivatives already
> floating around.
Not the same boat at all. invalid.com is a legitimate domain as far as
the infrastucture is concerned. example.com is not.
Domain Name: INVALID.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. <---
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/
Name Server: NS3.JODOSHARED.COM
Name Server: NS4.JODOSHARED.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 26-mar-2013
Creation Date: 04-aug-1997
Expiration Date: 03-aug-2014
Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM
Registrar: RESERVED-INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY <--
Whois Server: whois.iana.org
Referral URL: http://res-dom.iana.org
Name Server: A.IANA-SERVERS.NET
Name Server: B.IANA-SERVERS.NET
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 14-aug-2013
Creation Date: 14-aug-1995
Expiration Date: 13-aug-2014
--
Don't eat things hawked by cartoon characters or people concealing their
identities, including masks or clown makeup. It doesn't end well.
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183052 is a reply to message #183042] |
Sat, 05 October 2013 19:01 |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Twayne wrote:
> You forget, invalid.com will load into your browser; they used to have
> email addresses too, before the registrars started threatening them.
> example.com is in the same boat with several derivatives already
> floating around.
They are not the same. Peter has already explained that to you.
> Bass turds like you abound around the 'net.
Persons-without-clue, such as yourself, are even more prevalent.
--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183054 is a reply to message #183051] |
Sat, 05 October 2013 22:13 |
bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2013-10-05 2:54 PM, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 19:33:28 -0400, Twayne wrote:
>> You forget, invalid.com will load into your browser; they used to have
>> email addresses too, before the registrars started threatening them.
>> example.com is in the same boat with several derivatives already
>> floating around.
>
> Not the same boat at all. invalid.com is a legitimate domain as far as
> the infrastucture is concerned. example.com is not.
It certainly is, as your own whois shows. Get your facts straight or
quit whining about such obvious things. Boy you're thick.
>
> Domain Name: INVALID.COM
> Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. <---
> Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
> Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/
> Name Server: NS3.JODOSHARED.COM
> Name Server: NS4.JODOSHARED.COM
> Status: clientTransferProhibited
> Updated Date: 26-mar-2013
> Creation Date: 04-aug-1997
> Expiration Date: 03-aug-2014
>
>
It's a legit site with a purpose: or is that too hard to understand?
Have you ever typed example.com into your browser bar? It very clearly
states:
-----------------
Example Domain
This domain is established to be used for illustrative examples in
documents. You may use this domain in examples without prior
coordination or asking for permission.
More information...
-----------------
The Horse's Mouth is worth much more than your horse's A$$.
> Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM
> Registrar: RESERVED-INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY <--
> Whois Server: whois.iana.org
> Referral URL: http://res-dom.iana.org
> Name Server: A.IANA-SERVERS.NET
> Name Server: B.IANA-SERVERS.NET
> Status: clientDeleteProhibited
> Status: clientTransferProhibited
> Status: clientUpdateProhibited
> Updated Date: 14-aug-2013
> Creation Date: 14-aug-1995
> Expiration Date: 13-aug-2014
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183055 is a reply to message #183052] |
Sat, 05 October 2013 22:16 |
bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2013-10-05 3:01 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Twayne wrote:
>
>> You forget, invalid.com will load into your browser; they used to have
>> email addresses too, before the registrars started threatening them.
>> example.com is in the same boat with several derivatives already
>> floating around.
>
> They are not the same. Peter has already explained that to you.
>
>> Bass turds like you abound around the 'net.
>
> Persons-without-clue, such as yourself, are even more prevalent.
>
LOL, you're a real gag on the ass of progress, aren't you?
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183056 is a reply to message #183055] |
Sun, 06 October 2013 01:47 |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Twayne, a person-without-clue, wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Twayne wrote:
>>> You forget, invalid.com will load into your browser; they used to have
>>> email addresses too, before the registrars started threatening them.
>>> example.com is in the same boat with several derivatives already
>>> floating around.
>>
>> They are not the same. Peter has already explained that to you.
>>
>>> Bass turds like you abound around the 'net.
>>
>> Persons-without-clue, such as yourself, are even more prevalent.
>
> LOL, you're a real gag on the ass of progress, aren't you?
One day you might wake up and understand. I don't expect it will be soon,
though. You and knowledge: never the twayne shall meet.
--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183057 is a reply to message #183056] |
Sun, 06 October 2013 02:45 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/5/2013 9:47 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Twayne, a person-without-clue, wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>> You forget, invalid.com will load into your browser; they used to have
>>>> email addresses too, before the registrars started threatening them.
>>>> example.com is in the same boat with several derivatives already
>>>> floating around.
>>>
>>> They are not the same. Peter has already explained that to you.
>>>
>>>> Bass turds like you abound around the 'net.
>>>
>>> Persons-without-clue, such as yourself, are even more prevalent.
>>
>> LOL, you're a real gag on the ass of progress, aren't you?
>
> One day you might wake up and understand. I don't expect it will be soon,
> though. You and knowledge: never the twayne shall meet.
>
ROFLMAO. Best I've heard in a long time, Beauregard!
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it [message #183058 is a reply to message #183057] |
Sun, 06 October 2013 02:54 |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Twayne, a person-without-clue, wrote:
>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>> > You forget, invalid.com will load into your browser; they used to
>>>> > have email addresses too, before the registrars started threatening
>>>> > them.
>>>> > example.com is in the same boat with several derivatives
>>>> > already floating around.
>>>>
>>>> They are not the same. Peter has already explained that to you.
>>>>
>>>> > Bass turds like you abound around the 'net.
>>>>
>>>> Persons-without-clue, such as yourself, are even more prevalent.
>>>
>>> LOL, you're a real gag on the ass of progress, aren't you?
>>
>> One day you might wake up and understand. I don't expect it will be
>> soon, though. You and knowledge: never the twayne shall meet.
>
> ROFLMAO. Best I've heard in a long time, Beauregard!
Rudyard is probably rolling over in his grave, too, I'll bet. ;-)
--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]