On Mon, 04 Mar 2019 14:52:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 04/03/2019 12:33, AnthonyL wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2019 13:12:15 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:


So that's:
200 + (4 x 12) + 20 + 30 =3D 298 25 * 12 =3D 300 6.25 x 12 =3D 75

Total: =A3673 =3D =A356.08/month but for a pretty resiliant voice/data
system.


I have a pure text reader - what do I have to do to see other that
=3673 etc which renders these numbers and calculations worse than the
Captchas complained about in another thread?


That is pure text. Pure UTF8 text.

But quoted-printable, not raw.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 04/03/2019 15:26, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I suspect your client doesn't support "Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable"

Er? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

is what most peole seem to be using.

Most people maybe, but not Dave's message that confused Anthony's client

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

ah. stupid old windows.

" ASCII: 7 bits. 128 code points.

ISO-8859-1: 8 bits. 256 code points.

UTF-8: 8-32 bits (1-4 bytes). 1,112,064 code points.

Both ISO-8859-1 and UTF-8 are backwards compatible with ASCII, but UTF-8
is not backwards compatible with ISO-8859-1: "


Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Newsreader: PMINews 2.00.1205 For OS/2
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well if he will run legacy software that hasnt been updated in a decade
on a legacy OS....that hasn't been updated in 15..


--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On 04/03/2019 15:43, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2019 14:52:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 04/03/2019 12:33, AnthonyL wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2019 13:12:15 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:


So that's:
200 + (4 x 12) + 20 + 30 =3D 298 25 * 12 =3D 300 6.25 x 12 =3D 75

Total: =A3673 =3D =A356.08/month but for a pretty resiliant voice/data
system.


I have a pure text reader - what do I have to do to see other that
=3673 etc which renders these numbers and calculations worse than the
Captchas complained about in another thread?


That is pure text. Pure UTF8 text.

But quoted-printable, not raw.


Well quoted printable is not applicable to UTF8 so thats two mistakes.




--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

On 03/03/2019 22:34, Steve wrote:

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 19:44:32 +0000, Michael Chare wrote:

On 03/03/2019 15:29, Steve wrote:

Mobile Plusnet rolling monthly contract.
Unlimited mins and txts, 5 GB data.
£8.

That amount of data for that price looks to be quite a good deal
especially if you are not otherwise a Plusnet customer.

Yes, I'm quite pleased with it. I was on 3 GB for £8 a
month, then I saw on HUKD that they had on offer 4 GB
for £8 so I called CS and asked to be moved to it. The
guy I spoke to said it couldn't be done. So rather
annoyed I asked for my PAC and he put me through to
retentions. The chap in retentions was much nicer. He
gave me a credit on my account of a few quid, unlimited
minutes and texts and raised the data allowance to 5
GB. I normally only use about 200 mins, a handful of
texts and around 2.5 GB of data. But it's nice to have
the extra just in case.

Well done. I have ordered Plusnet broadband and I have been thinking
about getting one of the mobile sims to start when my Vodafone contract
expires at the end of April. I normally use very little data, partly
because I mostly have access to Wifi. I bought a new Xiaomi phone so I
might use the data a bit more.

--
Michael Chare

On Mon, 04 Mar 2019 14:42:12 GMT, Pamela wrote:

Sounds like a great deal but how good is their customer service if
things go wrong and how long will Smarty Mobile be in business?

Donno about CS, not had to use it. SMARTY are owned by Hutchison 3G
and the parent is Three UK.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:03:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is pure text. Pure UTF8 text.

But quoted-printable, not raw.

Well quoted printable is not applicable to UTF8 so thats two mistakes.

It's leaving me as ISO-8859-1 quoted printable. Something else is
mangling it to UTF8.

--
Cheers
Dave.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well if he will run legacy software that hasnt been updated in a decade
on a legacy OS....that hasn't been updated in 15..

ISO Latin 1 includes a pound sign, the client is doing the encoding to
keep the message 7-bit clean, but it's mixing expectations that clients
are old enough to dislike 8-bit code pages yet they accept QP encoding ...

On 04/03/2019 14:42, Pamela wrote:
On 19:05 2 Mar 2019, F wrote:

Smarty mobile: unlimited calls, unlimited texts, 1GB data, £6.25 pm.

The deal includes 3 free months and a £10 Amazon voucher if we stay 12
months. So, effectively, £3.85 pm.

They've said they will continue with EU roaming on deal or no-deal.


Sounds like a great deal but how good is their customer service if things
go wrong and how long will Smarty Mobile be in business?

For as long as 3 are around: they own Smarty? And it's a monthly contract.

Contact is through chat and so far, when I've had a question, it's been
good.

--
F

On 03/03/2019 18:28, Robin wrote:

Always worth a call to "retentions" once you're out of contract.Â* And
Steve's post shows he is getting a lot more (mobile calls and TV) for
less than we are paying. But the last couple of times I've haggled
(before the recent complaint) I got the impression they weren't taking
my comparisons with other providers very seriously.Â* I fear that having
had cable internet since it first started in London on the old Cable
London network we're seen as pretty well captive. And probably are until
Openreach fibre arrives here.



I'll probably stick with my EE SIM only contract. Unlimited calls (very
important to me) unlimited texts (not important) and 2Gb/M.

I seldom use up the 2Gb as I always sing into wifi where possible at
work (most offices etc are happy to let you use their wifi if you ask,
if not the password is usually on a whiteboard in the secretaries office).



--
Adam

On 02/03/2019 15:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Here. IDNET, fixed IP address. ADSL2+. 6596kbps DOWN 1059kbps UP

Line rental + broadband is £28 + 20% VAT.

£30.80
PAYG phone calls extra on that - usually a couple of quid a month...

Mobile - PAYG as well on 3 Mobile. Generally also a couple of quid a month.

EE random IP address. ADSL2+ 4656kbps DOWN 1003kbps UP

(usually faster DOWN 5-6M but BT "improved" things in the village by
adding new cables recently - trashing my daffodils in the process)

Line rental + broadband £25 inc VAT + some daytime calls £2.

Mobile - EE contract 200 minutes, unlimited txts, 5.5GB data £5
(extracted various bonuses to get this - original was 200m,unl,0.5GB)

Generally burn mobile phone minutes and data first, and sometimes run up
£5 or so charges on it in a busy month but most times overrun is £1.


Exploits having everything with one provider to get best discounts and
periodic threats to leave to keep the price/offer suitably keen.

I also get 3% back by using Santander 123 DDs to pay.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Here. IDNET, fixed IP address. ADSL2+. 6596kbps DOWN 1059kbps UP

Virgin Media cable
172.5Mbit down
10.5Mbit up
£42/month

VOIP 'line rental' £1.20 per number per month

Theo

On 04/03/2019 16:32, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:03:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is pure text. Pure UTF8 text.

But quoted-printable, not raw.

Well quoted printable is not applicable to UTF8 so thats two mistakes.

It's leaving me as ISO-8859-1 quoted printable. Something else is
mangling it to UTF8.

Sorry - my mistake, should have said quoted printable is not applicable
to ISO-8859-1.



--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On 04/03/2019 16:32, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well if he will run legacy software that hasnt been updated in a
decade on a legacy OS....that hasn't been updated in 15..

ISO Latin 1 includes a pound sign, the client is doing the encoding to
keep the message 7-bit clean, but it's mixing expectations that clients
are old enough to dislike 8-bit code pages yet they accept QP encoding ...

Yup.And then when he gets clients who can understand all that replying,
it gets into UTF8, and he then mangles that still further..

Basically that OS/2 news reader is shot.

Sometimes you have to move with the times if you want to be understood.


--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On 03/03/2019 04:25, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/03/2019 15:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Here. IDNET, fixed IP address. ADSL2+. 6596kbps DOWN 1059kbps UP

Line rental + broadband is £28 + 20% VAT.

£30.80

Well I just had a visitation from the broadband fairy, and have finally
managed to upgrade from a pair of ADSL2 running at a whopping 1.6M/600K,
to FTTP 160M/30M, which it is fair to say is "better" :-))

FTTP on its own with IDNet 51.60/month inc VAT

Out of curiousity how much did the broadband fairy actually charge to
install FTTP?

My address theoretically is FTTP on request but I shudder to think what
they would charge me to run 3 miles of fibre from the exchange.

I presume you had fibre somewhere quite nearby?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:

Out of curiousity how much did the broadband fairy actually charge to
install FTTP?

My address theoretically is FTTP on request but I shudder to think what
they would charge me to run 3 miles of fibre from the exchange.

AIUI if they decide to fit FTTP instead of FTTC, the price is the same
as FTTC for given speed; but if you want FTTPoR where FTTC is available
the price is silly money.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 11:48:25 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

Out of curiousity how much did the broadband fairy actually charge to
install FTTP?

My address theoretically is FTTP on request but I shudder to think what
they would charge me to run 3 miles of fibre from the exchange.

AIUI if they decide to fit FTTP instead of FTTC, the price is the same
as FTTC for given speed; but if you want FTTPoR where FTTC is available
the price is silly money.

Until a few years ago I lived in a small country village, hamlet
really, 60 houses, and the phone cables were a mix of overhead and
underground from the cabinets at the top of the road. 1-2Mbit/s were
normal speeds.

When Fibre was proposed everyone assumed it would be FTTC, but no,
they put FTTP to everyone who alread was on Broadband at no extra
charge. I'd have to pay to get that here and I'm within a city
boundary. The villagers don't know what to do with their speed though
there are a couple of business who I'm sure are delighted.

--
AnthonyL

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 06:50:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/03/2019 16:32, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well if he will run legacy software that hasnt been updated in a
decade on a legacy OS....that hasn't been updated in 15..

ISO Latin 1 includes a pound sign, the client is doing the encoding to
keep the message 7-bit clean, but it's mixing expectations that clients
are old enough to dislike 8-bit code pages yet they accept QP encoding ...

Yup.And then when he gets clients who can understand all that replying,
it gets into UTF8, and he then mangles that still further..

Basically that OS/2 news reader is shot.

Sometimes you have to move with the times if you want to be understood.


Or just stick to a really old ASCII client that doesn't aim to confuse
anybody?

Usenet and email both trying to be too clever

--
AnthonyL

On 05/03/2019 11:31, Martin Brown wrote:
On 03/03/2019 04:25, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/03/2019 15:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Here. IDNET, fixed IP address. ADSL2+. 6596kbps DOWN 1059kbps UP

Line rental + broadband is £28 + 20% VAT.

£30.80

Well I just had a visitation from the broadband fairy, and have
finally managed to upgrade from a pair of ADSL2 running at a whopping
1.6M/600K, to FTTP 160M/30M, which it is fair to say is "better" :-))

FTTP on its own with IDNet 51.60/month inc VAT

Out of curiousity how much did the broadband fairy actually charge to
install FTTP?

£50 - just to supply and install the PON router. (There would have been
a small extra charge if I had wanted the ISPs router as well - but I was
planning on using my own. In reality I also upgraded my own router which
added another ~£250 to the cost)

My address theoretically is FTTP on request but I shudder to think what
they would charge me to run 3 miles of fibre from the exchange.

Yup, we were listed as FTTPoD (i.e. "On demand") for a a couple of years
or more. I did investigate what it would cost you buy, but it was next
to impossible to find anyone who actually wanted to supply it.

I presume you had fibre somewhere quite nearby?

They installed fibre along the street in May last year. Since its all on
poles above ground, they needed access to get at some of them including
mine. That was quite handy since it meant I had a captive one I could
ply with lots of tea and interrogate :-)

He intimated that tail end of the year was a likely go live date. In
reality it did not happen until this year. I think the delay was
actually connecting the PON at the supply end.

One it became "live" in the broadband availability checkers it was then
reasonably easy to order from a variety (but not all) ISPs. On the day
they sent two Openreach men/vans. The first one did the new cable drop
from the pole to the house (probably 15m from pole to house), and got
the cable into the house where I wanted it delivered. The second one
mounted the new box on the wall close to my comms cabinet, and took the
install up to the point of getting the PON connection lit on the router.

I got the impression it was unusual for them to not be doing the whole
install including the router. (They almost seemed shocked someone had
not ordered it all from BT!) They also did not have any idea how to
configure up or access the service. However my first guess seemed to
work just fine (connect the PON box to the WAN2 port on my router, and
configure that to make a PPPoE connection using my account details from
the ISP).


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

my first guess seemed to work just fine (connect the PON box to the WAN2
port on my router, and configure that to make a PPPoE connection using
my account details from the ISP).

using baby-jumbo?

On 05/03/2019 14:08, Andy Burns wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

my first guess seemed to work just fine (connect the PON box to the
WAN2 port on my router, and configure that to make a PPPoE connection
using my account details from the ISP).

using baby-jumbo?

I still have it set to the default 1492, but I expect it would take
more. I might have to investigate.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

using baby-jumbo?

I still have it set to the default 1492, but I expect it would take
more. I might have to investigate.

Handy site for testing ...

http://letmecheck.it/mtu-test.php

In message , Andy Burns
writes

Handy site for testing ...

http://letmecheck.it/mtu-test.php

Having just run that test, I am told 'From the tests we did, we can
assume that 1472 bytes is the largest unfragmented packet size. The MTU
size would be 1500, made up from 1472 payload and 28 ICMP/IP Headers and
payload information', but have no idea whether that is good, bad or
otherwise.


--
Graeme

In message , Graeme
writes
In message , Andy Burns
writes

Handy site for testing ...

http://letmecheck.it/mtu-test.php

Having just run that test, I am told 'From the tests we did, we can
assume that 1472 bytes is the largest unfragmented packet size. The MTU
size would be 1500, made up from 1472 payload and 28 ICMP/IP Headers
and payload information', but have no idea whether that is good, bad or
otherwise.

And here it just says it gets No Reply when it tries to test. Where is
the FM that I haven't RT'd?
--
Bill

Bill wrote:

Graeme wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

http://letmecheck.it/mtu-test.php

1472 bytes is the largest unfragmented packet size. The
MTU size would be 1500

That's generally good, occasionally you see a ****ty webserver that
refuses to talk to clients using smaller packets.

here it just says it gets No Reply when it tries to test.

Your router is probably firewalled to the extent it can't receive ping
requests (not necessarily a bad thing)

In article ,
says...

In message , Andy Burns
writes

Handy site for testing ...

http://letmecheck.it/mtu-test.php

Having just run that test, I am told 'From the tests we did, we can
assume that 1472 bytes is the largest unfragmented packet size. The MTU
size would be 1500, made up from 1472 payload and 28 ICMP/IP Headers and
payload information', but have no idea whether that is good, bad or
otherwise.

Interesting - I've just run the test from via my VM connection
and got precisely the same answer as you?

Any more volunteers?

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Terry Casey wrote:

Interesting - I've just run the test from via my VM connection
and got precisely the same answer as you?

Any more volunteers?

"From the tests we did, we can assume that 1472 bytes is the largest
unfragmented packet size. The MTU size would be 1500, made up from 1472
payload and 28 ICMP/IP Headers and payload information."

But then I know I have 1508 byte baby jumbo packets on my PPPoE
interface, hence full-fat 1500 byte "inner" packets.

In article ,
Terry Casey scribeth thus
In article ,
says...

In message , Andy Burns
writes

Handy site for testing ...

http://letmecheck.it/mtu-test.php

Having just run that test, I am told 'From the tests we did, we can
assume that 1472 bytes is the largest unfragmented packet size. The MTU
size would be 1500, made up from 1472 payload and 28 ICMP/IP Headers and
payload information', but have no idea whether that is good, bad or
otherwise.

Interesting - I've just run the test from via my VM connection
and got precisely the same answer as you?

Any more volunteers?


Sending 32 bytes to 81.96.85.23 - NO REPLY!

We are unable to test this host or IP.
Most likely ICMP traffic to that host or IP is not allowed or the host
or IP is invalid.

Thats as far as I got on a VM connection...
--
Tony Sayer

On 08/03/2019 15:15, tony sayer wrote:

Any more volunteers?


Sending 32 bytes to 81.96.85.23 - NO REPLY!

We are unable to test this host or IP.
Most likely ICMP traffic to that host or IP is not allowed or the host
or IP is invalid.

Thats as far as I got on a VM connection...

Curious. On VM (with Firefox in Win 10) for an IPv4 test I get

"Sending 32 bytes to 82.5.46.142 - not fragmented

Sending 750 bytes to 82.5.46.142 - not fragmented

Sending 1125 bytes to 82.5.46.142 - not fragmented

Sending 1313 bytes to 82.5.46.142 - not fragmented

Sending 1407 bytes to 82.5.46.142 - not fragmented

Sending 1454 bytes to 82.5.46.142 - not fragmented

Sending 1478 bytes to 82.5.46.142 - FRAGMENTED!

Sending 1466 bytes to 82.5.46.142 - not fragmented

Sending 1472 bytes to 82.5.46.142 - not fragmented

Sending 1475 bytes to 82.5.46.142 - FRAGMENTED!

Sending 1473 bytes to 82.5.46.142 - FRAGMENTED!

Sending 1472 bytes to 82.5.46.142 - not fragmented


From the tests we did, we can assume that 1472 bytes is the largest
unfragmented packet size. The MTU size would be 1500, made up from 1472
payload and 28 ICMP/IP Headers and payload information.

The maximum MTU size for 82.5.46.142 is: 1500"



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
http://letmecheck.it/mtu-test.php

Sending 32 bytes to [IP address] - NO REPLY!

We are unable to test this host or IP.
Most likely ICMP traffic to that host or IP is not allowed or the host
or IP is invalid.

Thats as far as I got on a VM connection...

Exactly the same for me. I'm in Plusnet.

On Friday, 8 March 2019 17:10:40 UTC, NY wrote:
We are unable to test this host or IP.
Most likely ICMP traffic to that host or IP is not allowed or the host
or IP is invalid.
Thats as far as I got on a VM connection...
Exactly the same for me. I'm in Plusnet.

Likewise. EE.

Owain