We have the usual landline,
and are now contemplating making the switch
to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
I was wondering, if there was any effort
to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
I don't think the femtocells do this ?
Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
and are strictly cellular - even at home.
But with our various cordless extensions around the house,
I don't feel like running upstairs to find my cellphone when I'm tinkering
in the basement.
SO - as another alternative to the landline migration to cable/internet
VoIP,
was wondering if there was a celluar basestation that could plug into the
house wiring
and provide service that way - using the existing home RJ-11 type phones..
--
----------------------------------
"If everything seems to be going well,
you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright
On 10/18/2010 1:33 PM, ps56k wrote:
> We have the usual landline,
> and are now contemplating making the switch
> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>
> I was wondering, if there was any effort
> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
> I don't think the femtocells do this ?
> Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
> and are strictly cellular - even at home.
In <i9iaup$k9d$1@news.eternal-september.org> "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> writes:
>I don't feel like running upstairs to find my cellphone when I'm tinkering
>in the basement.
>SO - as another alternative to the landline migration to cable/internet
>VoIP,
>was wondering if there was a celluar basestation that could plug into the
>house wiring
>and provide service that way - using the existing home RJ-11 type phones..
The kind folk over at Centennial Wireless in Mid Michigan, which
has now, alas, been taken over by AT&T, had (don't know if they
still do), a "cellular -> phone jack" magic box.
You just placed it anywhere within their cellular footprint (and their
roaming partners), and you had a "regular" phone jack coming out
the back. I saw it in their store with a standard cordless behind it.
They claimed it would work with faxen and modems. Don't know if they
were optimistic...
Again, I don't know if it's still around. Hmmmm... their (rebranded)
store is still nearby. Maybe I'll swing by.
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
It's under patent (I can't recall the company that owns the patent) and if
memory servers the patent has or soon will expire.
"ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:i9iaup$k9d$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> We have the usual landline,
> and are now contemplating making the switch
> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>
> I was wondering, if there was any effort
> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
> I don't think the femtocells do this ?
> Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
> and are strictly cellular - even at home.
>
> But with our various cordless extensions around the house,
> I don't feel like running upstairs to find my cellphone when I'm tinkering
> in the basement.
> SO - as another alternative to the landline migration to cable/internet
> VoIP,
> was wondering if there was a celluar basestation that could plug into the
> house wiring
> and provide service that way - using the existing home RJ-11 type phones..
"ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:i9iaup$k9d$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> We have the usual landline,
> and are now contemplating making the switch
> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>
> I was wondering, if there was any effort
> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
Been around for awhile. Before Bluetooth they were cradles for specific
phones. Now with Bluetooth any (bluetooth equipped) phone will work. See
the first 2 items on this web page for example... http://www.smithgear.com/bluetooth-landline.html
"ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:i9iaup$k9d$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> We have the usual landline,
> and are now contemplating making the switch
> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>
> I was wondering, if there was any effort
> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
> I don't think the femtocells do this ?
Correct. "Femtocells" are base stations that connect to ETHERNET. If
one's Internet connection is via DSL, it eventually connects to RJ-11
wiring, but not as POTS.
> Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
> and are strictly cellular - even at home.
>
> But with our various cordless extensions around the house,
> I don't feel like running upstairs to find my cellphone when I'm
tinkering
> in the basement.
> SO - as another alternative to the landline migration to cable/internet
VoIP,
> was wondering if there was a celluar basestation that could plug into the
house wiring
> and provide service that way - using the existing home RJ-11 type
phones..
"ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:i9iaup$k9d$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> We have the usual landline,
> and are now contemplating making the switch
> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>
> I was wondering, if there was any effort
> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
> I don't think the femtocells do this ?
Correct. "Femtocells" are base stations that connect to ETHERNET. If
one's Internet connection is via DSL, it eventually connects to RJ-11
wiring, but not as POTS.
> Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
> and are strictly cellular - even at home.
>
> But with our various cordless extensions around the house,
> I don't feel like running upstairs to find my cellphone when I'm
tinkering
> in the basement.
> SO - as another alternative to the landline migration to cable/internet
VoIP,
> was wondering if there was a celluar basestation that could plug into the
house wiring
> and provide service that way - using the existing home RJ-11 type
phones..
"ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:i9iaup$k9d$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> We have the usual landline,
> and are now contemplating making the switch
> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>
> I was wondering, if there was any effort
> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
> I don't think the femtocells do this ?
Correct. "Femtocells" are base stations that connect to ETHERNET. If
one's Internet connection is via DSL, it eventually connects to RJ-11
wiring, but not as POTS.
> Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
> and are strictly cellular - even at home.
>
> But with our various cordless extensions around the house,
> I don't feel like running upstairs to find my cellphone when I'm
tinkering
> in the basement.
> SO - as another alternative to the landline migration to cable/internet
VoIP,
> was wondering if there was a celluar basestation that could plug into the
house wiring
> and provide service that way - using the existing home RJ-11 type
phones..
In article <4cbcb009$0$1674$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>
> On 10/18/2010 1:33 PM, ps56k wrote:
> > We have the usual landline,
> > and are now contemplating making the switch
> > to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
> >
> > I was wondering, if there was any effort
> > to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
> > I don't think the femtocells do this ?
> > Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
> > and are strictly cellular - even at home.
>
> Several of those devices have come and gone.
>
> "http://www.phonelabs.com/" may still be around.
It is. Just don't cut and paste the quotes, like I did.
On 10/18/2010 11:32 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article<4cbcb009$0$1674$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>>
>> On 10/18/2010 1:33 PM, ps56k wrote:
>>> We have the usual landline,
>>> and are now contemplating making the switch
>>> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>>>
>>> I was wondering, if there was any effort
>>> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
>>> I don't think the femtocells do this ?
>>> Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
>>> and are strictly cellular - even at home.
>>
>> Several of those devices have come and gone.
>>
>> "http://www.phonelabs.com/" may still be around.
>
>
> It is. Just don't cut and paste the quotes, like I did.
You shouldn't have to cut and paste, just click the URL in the message.
The quotes keep long URLs from breaking.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:43:01 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:
>In article <4cbdad11$0$1582$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>
>
>> You shouldn't have to cut and paste, just click the URL in the message.
>> The quotes keep long URLs from breaking.
>
>YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
>
>(I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
Seth, wrote the following at or about 10/18/2010 6:45 PM:
>
> "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in message
> news:i9iaup$k9d$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> We have the usual landline,
>> and are now contemplating making the switch
>> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>>
>> I was wondering, if there was any effort
>> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
>
> Been around for awhile. Before Bluetooth they were cradles for specific
> phones. Now with Bluetooth any (bluetooth equipped) phone will work. See
> the first 2 items on this web page for example...
> http://www.smithgear.com/bluetooth-landline.html
>
>
This thread, yesterday, got me doing some research as we just abandoned
our landline and have gone strictly cellular. There are a fair number
of Bluetooth enabled gateways out there that will do what the OP wanted.
I settled on and ordered the Siemens Gigaset Gateway which happens to be
the first product listed at the smithgear website posted by Seth.
Siemens unit is the same as the xLink BT unit but I saw some complaints
- by one of their retailers of all things - that turned me off. That
same retailer suggested going with the Siemens which is the same unit
basically but allegedly has better service and support through Siemens.
Even GE has a relatively cheap unit ~$30 but I liked what I saw with the
Siemens/xLink unit. Do your homework and I think you'll agree.
Hopefully, I will be able to report back to everyone that the Gigaset
gateway is the greatest thing since sliced bread after I receive it and
get it up and running.
Getting rid of the landline was/is still a smart move in our case but
then we started thinking about where's the damn phone when you need it?
In the kitchen when you're in the bedroom? In the bedroom when you're
in the family room? In the family room when you're in the detached
garage and workshop, etc?
We have a great cordless phone setup that covered all those bases for us
so this item should work out just fine. What I liked about Gigaset unit
is that you can, from your cordless phone, select which one of up to
three cellular phones you call out on and do so on a call by call basis
right from the cordless handset. You can also assign variable ring
tones to your phone vs. your wife's phone vs. sonny boy's phone.
In article <08mrb6djdng5v3u2bqcv02othm7tg216v1@4ax.com>, pminer@elrancho.invalid says...
> >YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
> >
> >(I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
>
> The < and > brackets work universally, I'm told.
"ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:i9iaup$k9d$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> We have the usual landline,
> and are now contemplating making the switch
> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>
> I was wondering, if there was any effort
> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
> I don't think the femtocells do this ?
> Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
> and are strictly cellular - even at home.
>
> But with our various cordless extensions around the house,
> I don't feel like running upstairs to find my cellphone when I'm tinkering
> in the basement.
> SO - as another alternative to the landline migration to cable/internet
> VoIP,
> was wondering if there was a celluar basestation that could plug into the
> house wiring
> and provide service that way - using the existing home RJ-11 type phones..
>
> --
> ----------------------------------
> "If everything seems to be going well,
> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright
>
>
lots of alternatives... if your phone service to the house is off
(disconected, or the outside box open/not connected, must not be powering
the inside the house lines) basically almost anything with a dial tone that
has a phone jack can be plugged into an existing phone socket and energizes
all the other phone sockets in your house (voip cable modem, cell phone base
station, magicjack etc)
have actually used voip for a dial-up modem (no fax to try, but full speed
on dial up makes me think much slower fax will work)
even use my cordless phone with whatever is plugged in....
just a caveat, I used to use a cell with docking basestation, was okay, but
had cable tv and internet already, so just went with the comcast triple-play
(voip digital voice)
On Oct 18, 1:33*pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
> We have the usual landline,
> and are now contemplating making the switch
> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>
> I was wondering, if there was any effort
> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
> I don't think the femtocells do this ?
> Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
> and are strictly cellular - even at home.
>
> But with our various cordless extensions around the house,
> I don't feel like running upstairs to find my cellphone when I'm tinkering
> in the basement.
> SO - as another alternative to the landline migration to cable/internet
> VoIP,
> was wondering if there was a celluar basestation that could plug into the
> house wiring
> and provide service that way - using the existing home RJ-11 type phones...
>
> --
> ----------------------------------
> "If everything seems to be going well,
> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright
I've been using the Xlink BT a cellular to traditional phone gateway
for months. I got mine at Amazon for ~$80. Link: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ink+BT&x=0&y=0
orhttp://goo.gl/v0bz It will work with any Bluetooth capable
cellphone. It works great as long as you keep the cellphone near to
the Xlink base station. The reception can get staticky if you go too
far from the base station.
Before that I used a "Cellsocket" that had a "dock" which required a
specific brand of cellphone.
weekilter wrote on [Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:47:34 -0700 (PDT)]:
> On Oct 18, 1:33Â*pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
>> We have the usual landline,
>> and are now contemplating making the switch
>> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>>
>> I was wondering, if there was any effort
>> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
>> I don't think the femtocells do this ?
>> Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
>> and are strictly cellular - even at home.
>>
>> But with our various cordless extensions around the house,
>> I don't feel like running upstairs to find my cellphone when I'm tinkering
>> in the basement.
>> SO - as another alternative to the landline migration to cable/internet
>> VoIP,
>> was wondering if there was a celluar basestation that could plug into the
>> house wiring
>> and provide service that way - using the existing home RJ-11 type phones..
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------
>> "If everything seems to be going well,
>> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright
>
> I've been using the Xlink BT a cellular to traditional phone gateway
> for months. I got mine at Amazon for ~$80. Link:
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ink+BT&x=0&y=0
> orhttp://goo.gl/v0bz It will work with any Bluetooth capable
> cellphone. It works great as long as you keep the cellphone near to
> the Xlink base station. The reception can get staticky if you go too
> far from the base station.
How do all these solutions work when the person who owns the cell phone
needs to run to the store?
On 10/21/2010 10:07 PM, Justin wrote:
> weekilter wrote on [Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:47:34 -0700 (PDT)]:
>> On Oct 18, 1:33 pm, "ps56k"<pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
>>> We have the usual landline,
>>> and are now contemplating making the switch
[SNIP]
>>
>> I've been using the Xlink BT a cellular to traditional phone gateway
>> for months. I got mine at Amazon for ~$80. Link:
>> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ink+BT&x=0&y=0
>> orhttp://goo.gl/v0bz It will work with any Bluetooth capable
>> cellphone. It works great as long as you keep the cellphone near to
>> the Xlink base station. The reception can get staticky if you go too
>> far from the base station.
>
> How do all these solutions work when the person who owns the cell phone
> needs to run to the store?
Give it a little thought, I'm sure that something will come to you. <g>
Most of these links will sync with a number of cell phones (anywhere
from 2 to 6). If the people are home, so is their phone. If no one is
home let the damn cat write a letter or send e-mail. Letting them have
access to the telephone is just going to spoil them!
On Oct 21, 8:07*pm, Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> weekilter wrote on [Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:47:34 -0700 (PDT)]:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 1:33*pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
> >> We have the usual landline,
> >> and are now contemplating making the switch
> >> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>
> >> I was wondering, if there was any effort
> >> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
> >> I don't think the femtocells do this ?
> >> Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
> >> and are strictly cellular - even at home.
>
> >> But with our various cordless extensions around the house,
> >> I don't feel like running upstairs to find my cellphone when I'm tinkering
> >> in the basement.
> >> SO - as another alternative to the landline migration to cable/internet
> >> VoIP,
> >> was wondering if there was a celluar basestation that could plug into the
> >> house wiring
> >> and provide service that way - using the existing home RJ-11 type phones..
>
> >> --
> >> ----------------------------------
> >> "If everything seems to be going well,
> >> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright
>
> > I've been using the Xlink BT a cellular to traditional phone gateway
> > for months. *I got mine at Amazon for ~$80. Link:
> >http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...%3Daps&field-k...
> > orhttp://goo.gl/v0bz*It will work with any Bluetooth capable
> > cellphone. *It works great as long as you keep the cellphone near to
> > the Xlink base station. *The reception can get staticky if you go too
> > far from the base station.
>
> How do all these solutions work when the person who owns the cell phone
> needs to run to the store?
You take your cellphone with you. My cellphone (Nokia 5310) beeps at
me once it's lost the link to the Xlink.
Of course it means that when you leave where the BT link is there's no
phone service there so if people sharing a place with you need to make
calls on regular phones it won't work unless they have synched their
cellphone(s) to the BT link. the Xlink can sync with up to three
different cellphones.
Steve Sobol wrote the following:
> In article <4cbdad11$0$1582$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>
>
>
>> You shouldn't have to cut and paste, just click the URL in the message.
>> The quotes keep long URLs from breaking.
>>
>
> YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
>
> (I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
>
I use Thunderbird for newsgroups and Firefox for browsing.
The link worked as it was written because Tbird stripped the leading and
trailing quotes.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:30:31 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:
>In article <08mrb6djdng5v3u2bqcv02othm7tg216v1@4ax.com>,
>pminer@elrancho.invalid says...
>
>> >YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
>> >
>> >(I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
>>
>> The < and > brackets work universally, I'm told.
>
>
>Yes, use of < and > is a better bet.
better but not always, some news readers wrap long URLs and get
confused.
Agent gladly disposes of the quotes, not considering them part or a URL
reference. Of course the standard URL link has quotes.
href="http://some.network/file.html"
One thing that has always worked for me is the url sans quotes on a
single line. If long, on another line post a tinyurl for those with
wrapping issues.
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:01:41 -0400, gerry <gerrrry__net@gogood.com>
wrote:
>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:30:31 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <08mrb6djdng5v3u2bqcv02othm7tg216v1@4ax.com>,
>>pminer@elrancho.invalid says...
>>
>>> >YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
>>> >
>>> >(I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
>>>
>>> The < and > brackets work universally, I'm told.
>>
>>
>>Yes, use of < and > is a better bet.
>
>
>better but not always, some news readers wrap long URLs and get
>confused.
Which newsreader gets confused by URLs enclosed in < and > characters?
>Agent gladly disposes of the quotes, not considering them part or a URL
>reference. Of course the standard URL link has quotes.
>
>href="http://some.network/file.html"
No, that's a bit of HTML and has nothing to do with Usenet.
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 03:51:48 +0430, "Peter Pan"
<PeterPan@NOSPAMMarcAlan.Info> wrote:
>
>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
>news:024pc6lnpf89jt46kccf3uq4lrls43mcuq@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:01:41 -0400, gerry <gerrrry__net@gogood.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:30:31 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <08mrb6djdng5v3u2bqcv02othm7tg216v1@4ax.com>,
>>>>pminer@elrancho.invalid says...
>>>>
>>>>> >YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >(I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
>>>>>
>>>>> The < and > brackets work universally, I'm told.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, use of < and > is a better bet.
>>>
>>>
>>>better but not always, some news readers wrap long URLs and get
>>>confused.
>>
>> Which newsreader gets confused by URLs enclosed in < and > characters?
>>
>>>Agent gladly disposes of the quotes, not considering them part or a URL
>>>reference. Of course the standard URL link has quotes.
>>>
>>>href="http://some.network/file.html"
>>
>> No, that's a bit of HTML and has nothing to do with Usenet.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Miner
>
>
>far as i know, while the <> signs usually work, google groups ignores them
>and breaks url's... problem seems to also happen when someone replies and
>the url is in the reply....
Google Groups is an abomination though, so I don't worry too much
about it. Many people simply filter posts from there.
"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
news:024pc6lnpf89jt46kccf3uq4lrls43mcuq@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:01:41 -0400, gerry <gerrrry__net@gogood.com>
> wrote:
>
>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:30:31 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <08mrb6djdng5v3u2bqcv02othm7tg216v1@4ax.com>,
>>>pminer@elrancho.invalid says...
>>>
>>>> >YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
>>>> >
>>>> >(I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
>>>>
>>>> The < and > brackets work universally, I'm told.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, use of < and > is a better bet.
>>
>>
>>better but not always, some news readers wrap long URLs and get
>>confused.
>
> Which newsreader gets confused by URLs enclosed in < and > characters?
>
>>Agent gladly disposes of the quotes, not considering them part or a URL
>>reference. Of course the standard URL link has quotes.
>>
>>href="http://some.network/file.html"
>
> No, that's a bit of HTML and has nothing to do with Usenet.
>
> --
> Paul Miner
far as i know, while the <> signs usually work, google groups ignores them
and breaks url's... problem seems to also happen when someone replies and
the url is in the reply....
"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
news:csfvc6tqjij7n1pfqbrq21dmtr22o7n9sd@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 03:51:48 +0430, "Peter Pan"
> <PeterPan@NOSPAMMarcAlan.Info> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:024pc6lnpf89jt46kccf3uq4lrls43mcuq@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:01:41 -0400, gerry <gerrrry__net@gogood.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:30:31 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <08mrb6djdng5v3u2bqcv02othm7tg216v1@4ax.com>,
>>>>>pminer@elrancho.invalid says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> >YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >(I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The < and > brackets work universally, I'm told.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, use of < and > is a better bet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>better but not always, some news readers wrap long URLs and get
>>>>confused.
>>>
>>> Which newsreader gets confused by URLs enclosed in < and > characters?
>>>
>>>>Agent gladly disposes of the quotes, not considering them part or a URL
>>>>reference. Of course the standard URL link has quotes.
>>>>
>>>>href="http://some.network/file.html"
>>>
>>> No, that's a bit of HTML and has nothing to do with Usenet.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul Miner
>>
>>
>>far as i know, while the <> signs usually work, google groups ignores them
>>and breaks url's... problem seems to also happen when someone replies and
>>the url is in the reply....
>
> Google Groups is an abomination though, so I don't worry too much
> about it. Many people simply filter posts from there.
>
> --
> Paul Miner
yeah, unfortunately, if someone replies to a post via google groups in a
thread, that broken link is perpetuated, from then on, in every reply which
includes the first reply, no matter what... point was, are there any
NEWSREADERS that don't understand <>? I don't know of any newsreaders that
don't honor them, nor email programs that don't honor them... just some
isp's/google groups that ignore/trash em
funny thing is, ever play with something like tinyurl? like a wet dream,
google can screw them up too
(link is http://tinyurl.com/ but google deletes the space before the http
too)
home phones via cellular RJ-11 
Linear Mode
