<clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ecjd539h3cqapjjnrfvtkuv7ulrk89mq02@4ax.com
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:22:40 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> > well a newsgroup
> > posting may not be email, but it's close enough. FORUM
>
> > Yes it was.
>
> NO IT WASEN 'T
Shouting and bad spelling all in three words, you're doing well today
Ron..!
<clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:76jd53hs2093pgis54936btnv0ueee60ki@4ax.com
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 02:42:48 +0100, "Rob"
> <nobody@this.place.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> > <clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:mo6c53h6rbnh9c8emt6u7426nc7ijj03e9@4ax.com...
> > > >
> > > Take no notice Ivor is totally obsessed with spam.
> >
> > And you wouldn't be totally obsessed with Ivor would
> > you?
> >
> > Rob
> >
> No I am not I am obsessed with anyone who goes on and on
> about such things but there is ONLY Ivor that seems to do
> this .
"SBS" <no.spam@me> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4656dc0c$0$36449$4fafbaef@reader5.news.tin.it ...
>
> Free geographic numbers (local rate, no national
> rate) and the best audio quality (no delay).
>
> (Obviously cheap)
> "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3292333.hLYrBQ2OVN@ale.cx
>> In your opinion. If you don't like the thread, just
>> ignore it.
>
> Tell you what, why don't you ignore me..? I won't mind, honest.
It's difficult to ignore you when you post to every thread, dragging them
off topic to further your petty little agenda, you ignorant little
pig-fucker.
"alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:51336548.tg8tou0vxd@ale.cx
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> > "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3292333.hLYrBQ2OVN@ale.cx
>
> > > In your opinion. If you don't like the thread, just
> > > ignore it.
> >
> > Tell you what, why don't you ignore me..? I won't mind,
> > honest.
>
> It's difficult to ignore you when you post to every
> thread, dragging them off topic to further your petty
> little agenda, you ignorant little pig-fucker.
Ah, foul language. Now you've shown your true colours.
FYI I do not "post to every thread" - I only post to those I feel it
necessary to do so.
BTW you can ignore me easily, it's called a killfile. Do you want me to
show you how to use it..? You are obviously somewhat lacking in
intelligence if you have to resort to swearing to make a point.
<clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:tpqd53lht3i4ctipojdv41tcelut9puig5@4ax.com
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:00:07 +0100, alexd
> <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ivor Jones wrote:
> >
> > > "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3292333.hLYrBQ2OVN@ale.cx
> >
> > > > In your opinion. If you don't like the thread, just
> > > > ignore it.
> > >
> > > Tell you what, why don't you ignore me..? I won't
> > > mind, honest.
> >
> > It's difficult to ignore you when you post to every
> > thread, dragging them off topic to further your petty
> > little agenda, you ignorant little pig-fucker.
> Well he is a bloody biker and stupid radio ham what do
> you expect from such people .
<clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:qeud539ovrrshbbfrhle1iajhk5vjms1ki@4ax.com
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:32:03 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> > Ah, foul language. Now you've shown your true colours.
>
> You are enough to make the pope use foul language go away
> and hound the spammers .
Ah, so you *want* me to hound spammers..? What are you complaining about,
then..?!
<clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:2hud539copp0dq3q4umq8mf6vhmkm2j523@4ax.com
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:32:35 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> > Ah, sweeping generalisations.
> >
> No it has been my experance that all you bikers and radio
> hams are tarred with the same brush .
Like I said, sweeping generalisations. Have you met *all* the bikers and
radio amateurs in the world..? Have you even met a fraction of them..? No.
I'd stop digging now if I were you.
<clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:l9jd5356klepipfqas9voelnkso3conood@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:21:05 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>><clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:gs6c53lpmrltk4nb6ilunvlli02o8q22u1@4ax.co m
>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 17:03:35 +0100, alexd
>>> <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Ivor Jones wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
>>> > > news:f32j6p$a5h$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>>> >
>>> > > > What makes this spam?
>>> > >
>>> > > It's unsolicited. That's the definition of spam.
>>> >
>>> > In your opinion. If you don't like the thread, just
>>> > ignore it.
>>> He couldn't how else could he get himself noticed don't
>>> forget he OWN'S this forum or thinks he does .
>>
>>Newsgroup.
> FORUM
Exactly how fucking old are you Ron?
Ivor is wrong on this one, but his intentions are far better than yours.
clavox@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:32:35 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> Ah, sweeping generalisations.
>>
> No it has been my experance that all you bikers and radio hams are
> tarred with the same brush .
I have partaken in both activities in yesteryear.
Would have you have spotted it? or is it more noticeable on people
currently partaking in such activities?
> O.K., I was hoping I wouildn't be the first here ...
> 1. Obvious stuff like reliability and good quality audio.
> 2. Good prices including a flat rate to landlines like voip.co.uk and
> vyke.co.uk. Decent mobile rates.
> 3. Good voicemail facility.
> 4. MUST work with Voxalot.
> 5. Usual inclusive 'network services' (i.e. 1471 etc.) additions.
> 6. Inclusive geo incoming number.
7. A reliable and rapid fail-over to PSTN number as and when the service
should go down.
Loss of internet and e-mail for a few hours is no big thing really, but
loss of VOIP service at providers end for more than a few minutes is a
real problem and needs to be switched to PSTN for inbound calls very
quickly.
On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:22:40 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>> No it's not.
>
>Unsolicited Commercial Email. It was certainly unsolicited. It may not
>have been commercial, but it looked like it to me. Email, well a newsgroup
>posting may not be email, but it's close enough.
>
>> The OP was not spam.
>
>Yes it was.
>
>> On the other hand, if your reply was an answer to the
>> question suggesting that "no spam" was something you
>> would like to see from the OPs service, then good - I
>> second the suggestion.
>
>It was that too.
I'm not sure whether it was spam or not but it _was_ a bloody good
troll!
On 2007-05-25, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f356ob$1v84$3@energise.enta.net
>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>> > "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
>> > news:f32j6p$a5h$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>> > > "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
>> > > news:5bjb8hF2srgukU1@mid.individual.net...
>> > > > "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
>> > > > news:f305k2$fij$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>> > > > > We will launch a new VOIP service soon. We are
>> > > > > sounding out u guys n gals in this newsgroup!
>> > > > > Tell me what you would like from our service
>> > > > No spam.
>> > > >
>> > > What makes this spam?
>> >
>> > It's unsolicited. That's the definition of spam.
>>
>> No it's not.
>
> Unsolicited Commercial Email.
Pick ONE definition, please.
> It was certainly unsolicited.
Agreed.
> It may not have been commercial, but it looked like it to me.
It wasn't commercial, and isn't commercial. You jumped the gun and
didn't read the original post. An apology from you to the OP would be
nice, but I don't expect we'll see one. Nor do I expect you to admit
that you are wrong in this case.
> Email, well a newsgroup posting may not be email, but it's close
> enough.
<groundless argument>
Email is not a newsgroup. Nowhere on the www.usenet.org.uk does it say
the word email, therefore you may not refer to it as email EVER.
</groundless argument>
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f356ob$1v84$3@energise.enta.net
>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>>> "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
>>> news:f32j6p$a5h$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>>>> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:5bjb8hF2srgukU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f305k2$fij$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>>>>>> We will launch a new VOIP service soon. We are
>>>>>> sounding out u guys n gals in this newsgroup!
>>>>>> Tell me what you would like from our service
>>>>> No spam.
>>>>>
>>>> What makes this spam?
>>> It's unsolicited. That's the definition of spam.
>> No it's not.
>
> Unsolicited Commercial Email. It was certainly unsolicited.
As is every root message in this newsgroup.
> have been commercial, but it looked like it to me.
> Email, well a newsgroup
> posting may not be email, but it's close enough.
Ivor Jones wrote:
> <clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:qb7c5398en5sh83bejebjk303vha441abp@4ax.com
>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:48:15 +0100, Desk Rabbit
>> <nospam@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Make up your mind. If they had posted a web site you'd
>>> be complaining it was spam now you are complaining its
>>> spam because they didn't post a web site! FFS!
>> Fick in he .
>
> Que..?
>
>
On 2007-05-24, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:j6oa535sum1fjgqvgb3lh9cl2fqqsdkikm@4ax.com
>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:21:38 +0100, "RH"
>> <rh@no-spicedham.exelsys.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I hate spam as much as the next person, spam as far as
>> > I define it is ; 1 way blatent advertising.
>> > this message did not advertise any company or product
>> > and was a genuine question trying to bring up a
>> > worthwhile discussion.
>>
>> I agree, it the post did not advertise anything, so it
>> might not be considerd as spam - unless you consider it
>> as market research spam.
>
> It's still spam. It was unsolicited and the poster doesn't give an email
> address that is valid,
So speaks <ivor@depsammed.invalid>. Nice troll, Ivor.
On 2007-05-25, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> Indeed. But a company that uses a munged address and doesn't provide a
> website where you can check out their products is somewhat suspicious to
> my mind.
But they are not advertising anything nor are they inviting people to
contact them directly. They (whoever they are) are asking a simple
question on uk.telecom.voip, a discussion group, probably to illicit
discussion regarding VoIP in the UK.
On 2007-05-25, Elia Finotti <eliaDOTfinotti@libero.it.invalid> wrote:
> "SBS" <no.spam@me> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:4656dc0c$0$36449$4fafbaef@reader5.news.tin.it ...
>>
>> Free geographic numbers (local rate, no national
>> rate) and the best audio quality (no delay).
>>
>> (Obviously cheap)
>
> And outgoing CID settable ;-)
As long as you can provide evidence that you "own" the number you want
to present, of course... :)
I have to reply to myself because the thread is so long. I dont want to
start a "spam war". Ivor, I live in London and I dont spam. My email address
is invalid, just like yours. I do have a rarely used yahoo address which you
can contact me directly on - if you wish. its meshcode at xxxxxhoo.co.uk. I
have read the whole thread and I will condense the wish list and reply to
all.
HOWEVER, one thing worries me and maybe you guys can tell me how to manage
it....SUPPORT !!
How can I provide proper live person on the phone (note I said person, not
cretin) with some knowledge and keep the service reasonably priced. I know
what people think about non-UK call centres so lets not even go there!
Most of the things required are usually sourced from BT Wholesale and I will
surely try to provide a good service.
Second thing - how does the provider improve the sound quality when so much
of it depends on the connection from the end user?
Bart.
Still not giving away any details of websites etc.
Not even asking for Beta Testers.
Certainly Doesnt want Ivor to be a Beta Tester.
<clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:fc2e53hmcf5io7e93us566suuj6lc7bicb@4ax.com
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:50:50 GMT, "Richard Colton"
> <webmaster@NILSPAMuselessinfo.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > Exactly how fucking old are you Ron?
> Oh dear more foul language now you know Ivor does not
> allow this in his fourum .
"Desk Rabbit" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
news:rvedndxWRJ-RjsrbnZ2dnUVZ8qfinZ2d@pipex.net
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:f356ob$1v84$3@energise.enta.net
> > > Ivor Jones wrote:
> > > > "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
> > > > news:f32j6p$a5h$1@news.freedom2surf.net
> > > > > "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in
> > > > > message news:5bjb8hF2srgukU1@mid.individual.net...
> > > > > > "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in
> > > > > > message news:f305k2$fij$1@news.freedom2surf.net
> > > > > > > We will launch a new VOIP service soon. We are
> > > > > > > sounding out u guys n gals in this newsgroup!
> > > > > > > Tell me what you would like from our service
> > > > > > No spam.
> > > > > >
> > > > > What makes this spam?
> > > > It's unsolicited. That's the definition of spam.
> > > No it's not.
> >
> > Unsolicited Commercial Email. It was certainly
> > unsolicited.
>
> As is every root message in this newsgroup.
>
>
> > have been commercial, but it looked like it to me.
>
> > Email, well a newsgroup
> > posting may not be email, but it's close enough.
>
> As close as a Rabbit is to a Kangaroo.
"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnf5e4tp.p8d.paul@challenger.my.home
> On 2007-05-24, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> > "Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:j6oa535sum1fjgqvgb3lh9cl2fqqsdkikm@4ax.com
> > > On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:21:38 +0100, "RH"
> > > <rh@no-spicedham.exelsys.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I hate spam as much as the next person, spam as far
> > > > as I define it is ; 1 way blatent advertising.
> > > > this message did not advertise any company or
> > > > product and was a genuine question trying to bring
> > > > up a worthwhile discussion.
> > >
> > > I agree, it the post did not advertise anything, so it
> > > might not be considerd as spam - unless you consider
> > > it as market research spam.
> >
> > It's still spam. It was unsolicited and the poster
> > doesn't give an email address that is valid,
>
> So speaks <ivor@depsammed.invalid>. Nice troll, Ivor.
Not at all. Change .invalid (the top level domain specifically intended
for the purpose) to .com and mail will reach me.
"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnf5e52p.p8d.paul@challenger.my.home
> On 2007-05-25, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> > Indeed. But a company that uses a munged address and
> > doesn't provide a website where you can check out their
> > products is somewhat suspicious to my mind.
>
> But they are not advertising anything nor are they
> inviting people to contact them directly. They (whoever
> they are) are asking a simple question on
> uk.telecom.voip, a discussion group, probably to illicit
> discussion regarding VoIP in the UK.
Right. The part of your sentence above "whoever they are" says it all to
me. If they were a reputable organisation they wouldn't hide.
Because the website, which might change, is not up yet ! At the moment, we
have a couple of servers up and we are testing and configuring stuff.
Hopefully, you will appreciate our effort to get things right on day 1.
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5bpfrhF2u8esqU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
> news:f37qir$9ig$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>
> [snip]
>
>> Still not giving away any details of websites etc.
>
> Why not..?
>
>> Not even asking for Beta Testers.
>> Certainly Doesnt want Ivor to be a Beta Tester.
>
> That's just as well, because it's the last thing I'd want to be.
>
> Ivor
>
>
"Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
news:f37qir$9ig$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>I have to reply to myself because the thread is so long. I dont want to
>start a "spam war". Ivor, I live in London and I dont spam. My email
>address is invalid, just like yours. I do have a rarely used yahoo address
>which you can contact me directly on - if you wish. its meshcode at
>xxxxxhoo.co.uk. I have read the whole thread and I will condense the wish
>list and reply to all.
>
> HOWEVER, one thing worries me and maybe you guys can tell me how to manage
> it....SUPPORT !!
> How can I provide proper live person on the phone (note I said person, not
> cretin) with some knowledge and keep the service reasonably priced. I know
> what people think about non-UK call centres so lets not even go there!
>
> Most of the things required are usually sourced from BT Wholesale and I
> will surely try to provide a good service.
>
> Second thing - how does the provider improve the sound quality when so
> much of it depends on the connection from the end user?
Bart,
You have hit probably the biggest issue on the head, customers are hard
people they want good service
and they don't want to pay for it. customers want free geographic calls, all
functions, and cheap costs and a live support
person who will answer the calls in 3 rings and they want the moon on a
stick.
Working in support in another industry I see supporting VOIP a nightmare,
You not only have to support your systems but also
other peoples internet connection/router/softphones/hardphones/ata all for a
customer who may only add £10 credit a quarter. In other
industries you would maybe charge customers £80/hour for decent tech
support.
I think having live telephone support is nice it is really an impossible
dream, unless a user whants to pay for it either via services charges for
the
VOIP services or having premium chargable support ( in addition to standard
support - no likes only form of support to be premium rate number)
or you can go down the Betamax route, they have several VOIP services which
offer no support, but prices are so cheap and people get such a good deal
that you kind of let the issues go when you have them as the savings are
huge.
Sound quality can vary a lot from different services providers.
The voice provider needs to have the bandwidth to cope with all incoming and
outgoing channels
should have different internet backbones
plus there is the routing of calls, some cheaper companies use grey routes
to channel calls abroad and quality can be iffy
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnf5e4tp.p8d.paul@challenger.my.home
>> On 2007-05-24, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:j6oa535sum1fjgqvgb3lh9cl2fqqsdkikm@4ax.com
>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:21:38 +0100, "RH"
>>>> <rh@no-spicedham.exelsys.com> wrote:
>>>>> I hate spam as much as the next person, spam as far
>>>>> as I define it is ; 1 way blatent advertising.
>>>>> this message did not advertise any company or
>>>>> product and was a genuine question trying to bring
>>>>> up a worthwhile discussion.
>>>> I agree, it the post did not advertise anything, so it
>>>> might not be considerd as spam - unless you consider
>>>> it as market research spam.
>>> It's still spam. It was unsolicited and the poster
>>> doesn't give an email address that is valid,
>> So speaks <ivor@depsammed.invalid>. Nice troll, Ivor.
>
> Not at all. Change .invalid (the top level domain specifically intended
> for the purpose) to .com and mail will reach me.
And yet the email address you post from IS invalid. Just as the OPs. Not
only that, but neither of you provide instructions in your posts on who
to derive a valid email address.
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnf5e52p.p8d.paul@challenger.my.home
>> On 2007-05-25, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>>> Indeed. But a company that uses a munged address and
>>> doesn't provide a website where you can check out their
>>> products is somewhat suspicious to my mind.
>> But they are not advertising anything nor are they
>> inviting people to contact them directly. They (whoever
>> they are) are asking a simple question on
>> uk.telecom.voip, a discussion group, probably to illicit
>> discussion regarding VoIP in the UK.
>
> Right. The part of your sentence above "whoever they are" says it all to
> me. If they were a reputable organisation they wouldn't hide.
So because they have not give you proof of identity in some form, they
must be spammers? Even though it is completely irrelevant for their post?
"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f38qo4$2ema$2@energise.enta.net
[snip]
> And yet the email address you post from IS invalid. Just
> as the OPs. Not only that, but neither of you provide
> instructions in your posts on who to derive a valid email
> address.
I would have thought it was obvious to anyone with a modicum of
intelligence. I don't particularly *want* to receive mail from anyone who
can't work that out.
Re: What do you want from a VOIP provider 
Linear Mode
