Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: netaddress.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to netaddress.com.

Comments · 8

  1. Re:Sasktel, I love you! by rrowv · · Score: 1 · on ISP Responsibility in Fight Against Spam

    Same goes for Netaddress (USA.net) for me. My address (right up there) is publicly posted all over the net. I get maybe 1 spam a week, at most. And so far, no false positives. I don't know what filtering software they're using, but it sure is effective.

  2. Re:It's google.. by abkaiser · · Score: 1 · on How Does Gmail Stack Up In The Webmail World?
    As a usa.net user of 8+ years, I wanted to defend them and bash them at the same time:

    Their service didn't actually stop. In July of 2001, they dropped the free service and required you to upgrade to the pay service if you wanted to keep your account. They did it fairly, though, with plenty of warning.

    The account is $40 per year. Taken from the netaddress.com website, here's what you get:

    10 MB storage
    Virus scanning of ALL inbound and outbound messages and attachments
    Enhanced spam filtering powered by Brightmail® Anti Spam
    No advertising
    Customer service
    Easy access to email anywhere, anytime, through any Web browser
    POP3 email access (i.e., via Microsoft Outlook)
    Forward messages to a wireless device
    Email collection from other accounts
    Secure login

    ...While they added features like spam filtering and POP3 access down the road, the 10 megs limit hasn't changed. They didn't keep with the times, and were unable or unwilling to compete, which is why I dropped them and now have a gmail account.

  3. The Old Yahoo POP3 Agreement by Milican · · Score: 2 · on Yahoo To Try To Charge For POP3 Services

    The old agreement for getting yahoo through POP3 involved marking a checkbox where you would agree to be put on more advertiser's lists so that Yahoo could get more revenue from spammers. What I think will really happen now is that you'll pay for them to "remove the spam"... yeah right! and it'll be the same as before with you $20 poorer...haha...

    I can't say too much though. I use USA.Net and they charged $30/year last year. Now they wanna charge for $45/year or $65/2yrs (members price) for e-mail. Thing is I want to have one non-isp dependent e-mail address so that people can always get ahold of me on e-mail. I also don't wanna host my own e-mail server (reliability), and I don't want to succumb to the borg. I gotta get my own domain!

    JOhn

  4. What's so great about Hotmail? by plashdoy · · Score: 1 · on What Happened To Hotmail?
    For the life of me, I can't figure out why Hotmail is practically synonymous with Web-based email. First to market? Or first to popularize? While I have personally had no complaints or problems with Hotmail, I'd hardly place it in the upper tier of free Web-based email services. I think uReach and iName are superior if only because they don't divulge the originator's IP address. But Netaddress, Mail.com, Mailcity, OneBox, eMail, ExciteMail, GoMail, just about any portal or community site (Deja, Netscape, AltaVista), and any number of smalltime "boutique" services (like ApexMail, Flashmail or MyPad) will do the trick and often with better service or features. Or is MSN's Passport service really that compelling?

    Besides uReach, Yahoo!Mail is the only one I use for "real" mail because I'm hooked by the rest of Yahoo's personalized services, esp. Yahoo!Companion. The rest are just "throwaway's", good for pseudononymous transactions. If you're placing a lot of trust in Hotmail not to lose your data, or keep it secure, or always be available...I think you're being foolish.

  5. Some good to this by Manuka · · Score: 1 · on Anti-Spam law Passed in Colorado

    NetAddress/USA.net is based here in colorado, and are often the target of spammers en masse (a friend recently checked his mailbox and found 17.5 MEGS of spam. It should also be noted here that NetAddress is also the provider of Netscape's WebMail. This affects a lot of mail.

  6. Re:How not to get or see spam. by legoboy · · Score: 2 · on Is Usenet Dying?

    I post fairly regularly on a couple newsgroups in the alt. hierarchy, with an unmangled email address.

    So long as you filter your email by the To: header, you'll get very little spam. Anything that's not specifically to one of my email addresses or an endorsed mailing list is automatically bounced. Only a couple pieces of email make it through this in a month. A couple hundred messages (across a few addresses) bounce. If a -lot- of spam makes it through this, which isn't too likely since spammers rarely use bcc, you could go so far as to only allow posts in if they have keywords.

    Filters, though.. If you don't/won't set them up, you deserve what you get.

    (Does someone pay off Hotmail to not allow filtering by the To: header? Use Netaddress for your throwaway accounts instead.

    ------

  7. Re:Decent webmail? by pen · · Score: 2 · on Microsoft Hotmail/Passport Service Interrupted:UPDATED
    Here are a few decent choices:

    • HotPop - These give you a free POP3 and SMTP account, in exchange for "solicited mailings" (or basically, targeted and legal spam). The legal spam is infrequent, and the services is good. The only catch is that you must authenticate with POP before you mail out, which is a common anti-spam practice.
    • Asian City Webmail - These give you a really nice webmail interface, along with a bunch of domains. I chose ramen.org.
    • Netaddress - Just your average webmail. They also offer a POP3 account for a few bucks, which used to be free but undocumented. I haven't used them in a while, but they were good when I did.
    Generally, Hotmail has been pretty good to me, but I only use it as a spam account. For real email, I use a POP3 account on a friend's box.

    --

  8. Re:WHOIS is useless these days anyway! by rwg · · Score: 2 · on NSI Modifies "whois" Agreement
    The WHOIS database isn't useful for anything these days anyway.

    NetSol's whois database isn't the only one to suffer from lack-of-usefulness.

    After repeatedly being the victim of smurf attacks (yes, there are still many broken networks out there), I wrote a perl script which analyzed the Netflow export from a Cisco 7000-series router, tested the source IPs' networks for "brokenness," and used whois.arin.net to get contact information for those networks. Much to my dismay, I was getting stuff like...

    150.174.97.255 52 Virginia State University (NET-VSUNET)
    "Grey, Michael" vsuars@VCUVM1.BITNET
    161.223.245.0 32 Indian Health Service (NET-IHS-BNET)
    "Jaramillo, Valentino" [No mailbox]
    192.48.125.0 33 Solar Energy Research Institute (NET-SERI-2)
    "Powers, Chuck" [No mailbox]

    ...in the logs. This makes it really hard to do automated "your network is broken, here's how to fix it" mailings.

    Some of these organizations have had their IP allocations since the mid-1980s and apparently haven't updated their contact information in all this time. (BITNET? Can we say "way of the dodo"?) Of course, since there's no "enforcement" to keep the contact information up-to-date, things won't be changing anytime soon. (At least the .nu registry has strong wording in their policy regarding valid contact information...)

    "[No mailbox]" shouldn't be allowed as a contact e-mail address, in my opinion. With the abundance of free/near-free e-mail services out there ( HotMail, Net@ddress, etc.), there is no excuse for not having a valid, working e-mail address. If you don't have an e-mail address, then you probably don't need to have IP addresses, either...