Imagine your domain becomes your telephone number one day! Or your IP. Well, you can already do that I supposed with VoIP
Not every U.S. telephone number beginning with 555 is fake
31–40 of 41 posts
Re: Not every U.S. telephone number beginning with 555 is fake
#32Similar: not every 192.x.x.x IP address is in a private (RFC1918) network.
I always wonder why people don't just use 10.0.0.X - it's easier to write, to tell people on the phone, and to remember if needs be.
Re: Not every U.S. telephone number beginning with 555 is fake
#33Imagine your domain becomes your telephone number one day! Or your IP. Well, you can already do that I supposed with VoIP
Can't wait!
"Hey Jim, give me a call at 2607 f0d0 1002 0051 0000 0000 0000 0004 when you get a minute" :)
Re: Not every U.S. telephone number beginning with 555 is fake
#34Imagine your domain becomes your telephone number one day! Or your IP. Well, you can already do that I supposed with VoIP
Can't wait! "Hey Jim, give me a call at 2607 f0d0 1002 0051 0000 0000 0000 0004 when you get a minute" :)
In that case, telephone number can never run out if used Ipv6 version. Reusable too! Totally mobile! And you don't even need to pay for mobile bill. Just an internet bill, $10 more. Woho.
Re: Not every U.S. telephone number beginning with 555 is fake
#35UK numbers for drama... http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/numbering/guidance...
use. I'm from the UK, living in Canada and I find the UK numbering better, esp since I can distinguish between a mobile phone and a land line.
I understand that calling a landline is the same thing as call a cell in North America, but it's why there is this mess of incoming minutes vs outgoing minutes allowances and "roaming" charges for leaving a state. Annoying as hell and means you can't get a cheap PAYG sim :(
Re: Not every U.S. telephone number beginning with 555 is fake
#36Imagine your domain becomes your telephone number one day! Or your IP. Well, you can already do that I supposed with VoIP
Can't wait! "Hey Jim, give me a call at 2607 f0d0 1002 0051 0000 0000 0000 0004 when you get a minute" :)
Now all we need is a catchy jingle for Moss to sing along to.
Re: Not every U.S. telephone number beginning with 555 is fake
#37Similar: not every 192.x.x.x IP address is in a private (RFC1918) network.
I always wonder why people don't just use 10.0.0.X - it's easier to write, to tell people on the phone, and to remember if needs be.
Several reasons. The biggest is what netmask to use. 192.168.x.x was originally a class C (/24) and the default netmask to use is that resulting in the least number of problems.
With 10.x.x.x, the original was class A (/8) but it is extremely unlikely you want that as the netmask. Other guesses could be wrong.
Additionally because of its size, it is likely used in corporate networks. This would cause grief with vpns if both your local network is 10.x.x.x and the corporate vpn is 10.x.x.x.
Re: Not every U.S. telephone number beginning with 555 is fake
#38Re: Not every U.S. telephone number beginning with 555 is fake
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that same line of thinking, who gets the email @test.com?
The people at test.com! They sounds a bit cranky. http://contactx.test.com/contactX/contact-spam.cfm
Cranky indeed. Unrelated but they have a misspelling on the referenced page:
"We can NOT control what other people forge in an email return address header and send using thier computers."
Re: Not every U.S. telephone number beginning with 555 is fake
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that same line of thinking, who gets the email @test.com?
I own (my username)@gmail.com and I get test emails several times a week.
Does anyone else see how dangerous this is? Nefarious people could obtain common names like this and monitor them for submissions with personal data from ignorant developers testing software.
Sure the issue is with the dev who made the mistake, but the result is nonetheless dangerous enough to warrant concern with security folk.