New UK Voip Forum

Discussion in 'UK VOIP' started by fred, May 6, 2006.

  1. fred

    fred Guest

    fred, May 6, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. fred

    Ivor Jones Guest

    "fred" <> wrote in message
    news:sQ%6g.109931$
    > Hi Folks
    > Theres a new UK Voip Forum that has just been set up.
    > Here's the link http://ukvoiptalk.com/
    > F.


    No thanks, it wants cookies.

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, May 6, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. fred

    David Floyd Guest

    In message of Sat, 6 May 2006, fred writes
    >Hi Folks
    >Theres a new UK Voip Forum that has just been set up. Here's the link
    >http://ukvoiptalk.com/
    >F.
    >
    >


    Why do we want yet another forum? What's wrong with uk.telecom.voip
     
    David Floyd, May 6, 2006
    #3
  4. fred

    Guest

    On Sat, 06 May 2006 11:33:44 GMT, "fred" <>
    wrote:

    >Theres a new UK Voip Forum that has just been set up.


    What is wrong with this newsgroup as a discussion forum for UK VOIP?
     
    , May 6, 2006
    #4
  5. fred

    Guest

    On Sat, 06 May 2006 15:01:50 +0100, wrote:

    >On Sat, 06 May 2006 11:33:44 GMT, "fred" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Theres a new UK Voip Forum that has just been set up.

    >
    >What is wrong with this newsgroup as a discussion forum for UK VOIP?

    Did he say there was anything wrong with it ??? .
     
    , May 6, 2006
    #5
  6. fred

    Ivor Jones Guest

    "David Floyd" <> wrote in message
    news:7QISsMj0HJXEFwkB@127.0.0.1
    > In message of Sat, 6 May 2006, fred writes
    > > Hi Folks
    > > Theres a new UK Voip Forum that has just been set up.
    > > Here's the link http://ukvoiptalk.com/
    > > F.

    >
    > Why do we want yet another forum? What's wrong with
    > uk.telecom.voip


    Well technically, this is a usenet newsgroup, not a forum.

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, May 6, 2006
    #6
  7. fred

    Martin Guest

    Ivor Jones wrote:

    >
    >
    > "fred" <> wrote in message
    > news:sQ%6g.109931$
    >> Hi Folks
    >> Theres a new UK Voip Forum that has just been set up.
    >> Here's the link http://ukvoiptalk.com/
    >> F.

    >
    > No thanks, it wants cookies.


    Excellent. I'd far rather see web applications transmit my session ID
    in a cookie, rather than pissing about chucking it in an ugly URL
    parameter (which will appear in browser histories and proxy logs).
     
    Martin, May 6, 2006
    #7
  8. fred

    Ivor Jones Guest

    "Martin" <> wrote in message
    news:
    > Ivor Jones wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > "fred" <> wrote in message
    > > news:sQ%6g.109931$
    > > > Hi Folks
    > > > Theres a new UK Voip Forum that has just been set up.
    > > > Here's the link http://ukvoiptalk.com/
    > > > F.

    > >
    > > No thanks, it wants cookies.

    >
    > Excellent. I'd far rather see web applications transmit
    > my session ID in a cookie, rather than pissing about
    > chucking it in an ugly URL parameter (which will appear
    > in browser histories and proxy logs).


    Ok, if that's what you want. I don't trust cookies, and I clear logs and
    histories immediately after creating them.

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, May 6, 2006
    #8
  9. fred

    Brian Guest

    On 2006-05-06, Ivor Jones <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > "fred" <> wrote in message
    > news:sQ%6g.109931$
    >> Hi Folks
    >> Theres a new UK Voip Forum that has just been set up.
    >> Here's the link http://ukvoiptalk.com/
    >> F.

    >
    > No thanks, it wants cookies.


    Just reject them then. The site content will still be accessible.

    Brian.
     
    Brian, May 6, 2006
    #9
  10. fred

    Guest

    On Sat, 6 May 2006 19:26:44 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
    <> wrote:


    >Ok, if that's what you want. I don't trust cookies, and I clear logs and
    >histories immediately after creating them.
    >
    >Ivor
    >

    Only an Idiot wouldn't Ivor .
     
    , May 6, 2006
    #10
  11. fred

    Brian A Guest

    On Sat, 6 May 2006 19:26:44 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >"Martin" <> wrote in message
    >news:
    >> Ivor Jones wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "fred" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:sQ%6g.109931$
    >> > > Hi Folks
    >> > > Theres a new UK Voip Forum that has just been set up.
    >> > > Here's the link http://ukvoiptalk.com/
    >> > > F.
    >> >
    >> > No thanks, it wants cookies.

    >>
    >> Excellent. I'd far rather see web applications transmit
    >> my session ID in a cookie, rather than pissing about
    >> chucking it in an ugly URL parameter (which will appear
    >> in browser histories and proxy logs).

    I have never worked out why they use GET instead of POST. With POST
    you don't see a query string. Some URLs do, indeed, get very long and
    messy.
    >Ok, if that's what you want. I don't trust cookies, and I clear logs and
    >histories immediately after creating them.

    If they are just session cookies then they won't be recorded
    permanently on your disk anyway. Having said that, if all you want is
    to 'ID' the session then cookies aren't necessary. If writing in PHP
    then PHP sessions can be created instead and the visitor is none the
    wiser.
    Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
     
    Brian A, May 6, 2006
    #11
  12. fred

    Guest

    On Sat, 06 May 2006 14:33:51 GMT, wrote:

    >Did he say there was anything wrong with it ??? .


    Good point: you've identified what is wrong with it: you.
     
    , May 6, 2006
    #12
  13. fred

    Guest

    On Sat, 06 May 2006 21:32:00 +0100, wrote:

    >On Sat, 06 May 2006 14:33:51 GMT, wrote:
    >
    >>Did he say there was anything wrong with it ??? .

    >
    >Good point: you've identified what is wrong with it: you.

    Did I say I had joined .
     
    , May 6, 2006
    #13
  14. fred

    fred Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 06 May 2006 14:33:51 GMT, wrote:
    >
    >>Did he say there was anything wrong with it ??? .

    >
    > Good point: you've identified what is wrong with it: you.


    Well I think you have just identified why a new forum is needed! Far too
    much bitching going in this newsgroup.
    Fred.
     
    fred, May 7, 2006
    #14
  15. fred

    Paul Cupis Guest

    HTTP GET/POST (was: Re: New UK Voip Forum)

    Brian A wrote:
    > I have never worked out why they use GET instead of POST. With POST
    > you don't see a query string. Some URLs do, indeed, get very long and
    > messy.


    From the HTML spec:

    ***************
    If the processing of a form is idempotent (i.e. it has no lasting
    observable effect on the state of the world), then the form method
    should be GET. Many database searches have no visible side-effects and
    make ideal applications of query forms.
    ***
    If the service associated with the processing of a form has side effects
    (for example, modification of a database or subscription to a service),
    the method should be POST
    ***************

    You'll find something similar in the HTTP spec, I think.

    Basically, if the request does not change anything on the server, i.e.
    could be resent with the same result, GET is correct. If the request is
    likely to change something on the server (update database etc), POST is
    correct.
     
    Paul Cupis, May 7, 2006
    #15
  16. fred

    Paul Cupis Guest

    Ivor Jones wrote:
    > "David Floyd" <> wrote in message
    > news:7QISsMj0HJXEFwkB@127.0.0.1
    >> Why do we want yet another forum? What's wrong with
    >> uk.telecom.voip

    >
    > Well technically, this is a usenet newsgroup, not a forum.


    I would suggest that it is both.
     
    Paul Cupis, May 7, 2006
    #16
  17. Thus spaketh fred:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Sat, 06 May 2006 14:33:51 GMT, wrote:
    >>
    >>> Did he say there was anything wrong with it ??? .

    >>
    >> Good point: you've identified what is wrong with it: you.

    >
    > Well I think you have just identified why a new forum is needed! Far
    > too much bitching going in this newsgroup.
    > Fred.



    This is a great Newsgroup.


    --
    Items for sale: www.dodgy-dealer.co.uk
    3p/min & 1p Texts, EasyMobile, For £5 airtime bonus contact via:
    www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk
     
    {{{{{Welcome}}}}}, May 7, 2006
    #17
  18. fred

    Ivor Jones Guest

    "Paul Cupis" <> wrote in message
    news:e3jddu$1519$
    > Ivor Jones wrote:
    > > "David Floyd" <> wrote in message
    > > news:7QISsMj0HJXEFwkB@127.0.0.1
    > > > Why do we want yet another forum? What's wrong with
    > > > uk.telecom.voip

    > >
    > > Well technically, this is a usenet newsgroup, not a
    > > forum.

    >
    > I would suggest that it is both.


    Practically, maybe. But *technically* it is a newsgroup. A forum is
    typically software such as PunBB or phpBB, accessed using a web-based
    interface.

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, May 7, 2006
    #18
  19. fred

    Ivor Jones Guest

    "Ivor Jones" <> wrote in message
    news:
    > "Paul Cupis" <> wrote in message
    > news:e3jddu$1519$
    > > Ivor Jones wrote:
    > > > "David Floyd" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:7QISsMj0HJXEFwkB@127.0.0.1
    > > > > Why do we want yet another forum? What's wrong with
    > > > > uk.telecom.voip
    > > >
    > > > Well technically, this is a usenet newsgroup, not a
    > > > forum.

    > >
    > > I would suggest that it is both.

    >
    > Practically, maybe. But *technically* it is a newsgroup.
    > A forum is typically software such as PunBB or phpBB,
    > accessed using a web-based interface.


    Oh yes, I almost forgot. A forum is nearly always moderated, so the
    rubbish we get here would never see the light of day if the administrator
    was on the ball.

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, May 7, 2006
    #19
  20. fred

    news Guest

    In message <Gea7g.231091$>, fred
    <> writes
    >
    >Well I think you have just identified why a new forum is needed! Far too
    >much bitching going in this newsgroup.
    >Fred.
    >
    >


    There is a very simple answer to that. Just ignore the bitchers. Don't
    respond to them. They will soon get the message.

    And, please, everyone, stop quoting the bitchers in your replies. I
    already have Dexter and a couple of others in my killfile, yet I *still*
    have the misfortune to see their dribbling.

    If everyone does all of the above, there is no need to create yet
    another forum. This forum (defined in OED as "a place of or meeting for
    public discussion") is fine.

    --
    Ian
     
    news, May 7, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. RC
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,022
  2. USEnterprise
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,715
    shriparna
    Oct 29, 2010
  3. JayDog

    Call Center VoIP Forum

    JayDog, Dec 14, 2004, in forum: VOIP
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    695
    JayDog
    Dec 14, 2004
  4. fred

    New UK Voip Forum

    fred, Jun 3, 2006, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    788
  5. voip_md
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    710
    voip_md
    Dec 17, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page