|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #171574 is a reply to message #171568] |
Mon, 10 January 2011 20:44   |
Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In news:c9ba34e2-15b2-43b2-b5e3-c1c73f35d6ee(at)f20g2000vbc(dot)googlegroups(dot)com,
laredotornado(at)zipmail(dot)com <laredotornado(at)zipmail(dot)com> typed:
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone recommend any free software for (roughly)
> looking up a zip code by IP address? It only has to work
> in the continental US. I tried this that I found through
> Google --
> http://www.phpclasses.org/package/2428-PHP-Get-hostname-zip-code-and-hit-co unt-for-an-IP-.html
> . But it hasn't worked for me, probably because the
> database doesn't have that many entries.
>
> Thanks, - Dave
Unless you know you can get to the user's ACTUAL IP address and not just
that of his server, something I doubt you can do, it'll never work for you.
Most ISPs cover larger geographic areas than just one zip. My ISP for
instance is 120 miles south of me, in a different zip, and it covers, at a
quickl glance, at least 14 zips. And the ISP is as far as you're going to
get with an IP. You need the IP of the USER, which the ISPs will not give
out.
HTH,
Twayne`
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #171576 is a reply to message #171574] |
Mon, 10 January 2011 22:02 |
Captain Paralytic
Messages: 204
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 10, 8:44 pm, "Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
> Innews:c9ba34e2-15b2-43b2-b5e3-c1c73f35d6ee(at)f20g2000vbc(dot)googlegroups(dot)com,
> laredotorn...@zipmail.com <laredotorn...@zipmail.com> typed:
>
>> Hi,
>
>> Can anyone recommend any free software for (roughly)
>> looking up a zip code by IP address? It only has to work
>> in the continental US. I tried this that I found through
>> Google --
>> http://www.phpclasses.org/package/2428-PHP-Get-hostname-zip-code-and-...
>> . But it hasn't worked for me, probably because the
>> database doesn't have that many entries.
>
>> Thanks, - Dave
>
> Unless you know you can get to the user's ACTUAL IP address and not just
> that of his server, something I doubt you can do, it'll never work for you.
> Most ISPs cover larger geographic areas than just one zip. My ISP for
> instance is 120 miles south of me, in a different zip, and it covers, at a
> quickl glance, at least 14 zips. And the ISP is as far as you're going to
> get with an IP. You need the IP of the USER, which the ISPs will not give
> out.
No you are totally wrong. You do get the IP of the user, but it will
be registered to the ISP's address.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #171577 is a reply to message #171568] |
Mon, 10 January 2011 22:05 |
Captain Paralytic
Messages: 204
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 10, 6:29 pm, "laredotorn...@zipmail.com"
<laredotorn...@zipmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone recommend any free software for (roughly) looking up a zip
> code by IP address? It only has to work in the continental US. I
> tried this that I found through Google --http://www.phpclasses.org/package/2428-PHP-Get-hostname-zip-code-and-...
> . But it hasn't worked for me, probably because the database doesn't
> have that many entries.
>
> Thanks, - Dave
Many people do not have fixed IP addresses. An IP that ends up at one
house/business can be at another one later on.
So I'm afraid that you simply cannot do this.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #171583 is a reply to message #171574] |
Tue, 11 January 2011 11:25 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Twayne wrote:
> In news:c9ba34e2-15b2-43b2-b5e3-c1c73f35d6ee(at)f20g2000vbc(dot)googlegroups(dot)com,
> laredotornado(at)zipmail(dot)com <laredotornado(at)zipmail(dot)com> typed:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can anyone recommend any free software for (roughly)
>> looking up a zip code by IP address? It only has to work
>> in the continental US. I tried this that I found through
>> Google --
>> http://www.phpclasses.org/package/2428-PHP-Get-hostname-zip-code-and-hit-co unt-for-an-IP-.html
>> . But it hasn't worked for me, probably because the
>> database doesn't have that many entries.
>>
>> Thanks, - Dave
>
> Unless you know you can get to the user's ACTUAL IP address and not just
> that of his server, something I doubt you can do, it'll never work for you.
> Most ISPs cover larger geographic areas than just one zip. My ISP for
> instance is 120 miles south of me, in a different zip, and it covers, at a
> quickl glance, at least 14 zips. And the ISP is as far as you're going to
> get with an IP. You need the IP of the USER, which the ISPs will not give
> out.
>
Her in teh UK its totally ointless, as addresses may be dynaicaly
allocated out f a pool of thousnds to any given cutstomer.
And it gets worse, because the link between te ISP and the customer is
over ATM and ADSL, so the last known location is the ISP's termination
equipment.
Lookups will return London, Manchester or Glasgow and that's it.
Looking up mine will return a location 70 miles away.
> HTH,
>
> Twayne`
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #171710 is a reply to message #171576] |
Mon, 17 January 2011 20:46 |
Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In news:f61806a3-a23e-4e39-83fd-c63ee7db5248(at)j32g2000prh(dot)googlegroups(dot)com,
Captain Paralytic <paul_lautman(at)yahoo(dot)com> typed:
> On Jan 10, 8:44 pm, "Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net>
> wrote:
>> Innews:c9ba34e2-15b2-43b2-b5e3-c1c73f35d6ee(at)f20g2000vbc(dot)googlegroups(dot)com,
>> laredotorn...@zipmail.com <laredotorn...@zipmail.com>
>> typed:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>
>>> Can anyone recommend any free software for (roughly)
>>> looking up a zip code by IP address? It only has to work
>>> in the continental US. I tried this that I found through
>>> Google --
>>> http://www.phpclasses.org/package/2428-PHP-Get-hostname-zip-code-and-...
>>> . But it hasn't worked for me, probably because the
>>> database doesn't have that many entries.
>>
>>> Thanks, - Dave
>>
>> Unless you know you can get to the user's ACTUAL IP
>> address and not just that of his server, something I doubt
>> you can do, it'll never work for you. Most ISPs cover
>> larger geographic areas than just one zip. My ISP for
>> instance is 120 miles south of me, in a different zip,
>> and it covers, at a quickl glance, at least 14 zips. And
>> the ISP is as far as you're going to get with an IP. You
>> need the IP of the USER, which the ISPs will not give out.
>
> No you are totally wrong. You do get the IP of the user,
> but it will be registered to the ISP's address.
Umm, the IP changes often, automatically, with time as dictated by the
servers. I can change my own by simply powering the modem down and back up
(DSL). Others change them at a particular time of day every 24 hours or
whatever schedule they like.
There are few static IP addresses. All you'll get any info on is the ISP
and NOTHING about the user except the current IP assigned to that user.
You'll go away knowing nothing about the user. Try it; look some people up.
If you were to do me, you'd be off by 120 some miles from the servers in a
different county even. Experience is the best teacher; try it out.
HTH,
Twayne`
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #171711 is a reply to message #171583] |
Mon, 17 January 2011 20:48 |
Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In news:igheo5$cni$6(at)news(dot)albasani(dot)net,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp(at)invalid(dot)invalid> typed:
> Twayne wrote:
>> In
>> news:c9ba34e2-15b2-43b2-b5e3-c1c73f35d6ee(at)f20g2000vbc(dot)googlegroups(dot)com,
>> laredotornado(at)zipmail(dot)com <laredotornado(at)zipmail(dot)com>
>> typed:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Can anyone recommend any free software for (roughly)
>>> looking up a zip code by IP address? It only has to work
>>> in the continental US. I tried this that I found through
>>> Google --
>>> http://www.phpclasses.org/package/2428-PHP-Get-hostname-zip-code-and-hit-co unt-for-an-IP-.html
>>> . But it hasn't worked for me, probably because the
>>> database doesn't have that many entries.
>>>
>>> Thanks, - Dave
>>
>> Unless you know you can get to the user's ACTUAL IP
>> address and not just that of his server, something I doubt
>> you can do, it'll never work for you. Most ISPs cover
>> larger geographic areas than just one zip. My ISP for
>> instance is 120 miles south of me, in a different zip, and it covers, at
>> a quickl glance, at least 14 zips. And
>> the ISP is as far as you're going to get with an IP. You
>> need the IP of the USER, which the ISPs will not give out.
> Her in teh UK its totally ointless, as addresses may be
> dynaicaly allocated out f a pool of thousnds to any given
> cutstomer.
> And it gets worse, because the link between te ISP and the
> customer is over ATM and ADSL, so the last known location
> is the ISP's termination equipment.
>
>
> Lookups will return London, Manchester or Glasgow and
> that's it.
> Looking up mine will return a location 70 miles away.
>
>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Twayne`
It's the same in the US. Even a tracert won't show what the OP wanted.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #171714 is a reply to message #171568] |
Tue, 18 January 2011 09:27 |
Romia Super
Messages: 1
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Jan 10, 1:29 pm, "laredotorn...@zipmail.com"
<laredotorn...@zipmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone recommend any free software for (roughly) looking up a zip
> code by IP address? It only has to work in the continental US. I
> tried this that I found through Google --http://www.phpclasses.org/package/2428-PHP-Get-hostname-zip-code-and-...
> . But it hasn't worked for me, probably because the database doesn't
> have that many entries.
>
> Thanks, - Dave
Hi Dave, are you looking for the similar solution provided by
http://iplocationtools.com? They do provide the ZIPCode by IP Address
and their data provided by ip2location.com, one of the geolocation
data providers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172926 is a reply to message #172924] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 03:13 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/11/2011 8:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Twayne wrote:
>
>> Captain Paralytic<paul_lautman(at)yahoo(dot)com> typed:
>>> No you are totally wrong. You do get the IP of the user,
>>> but it will be registered to the ISP's address.
>>
>> Umm, the IP changes often, […]
>
> To my knowledge, it has only changed once within the last 30 years. I would
> not call that often.
>
>
> PointedEars
IP addresses can change as often as every transmission, or as seldom as
almost never. They are not reliable.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172931 is a reply to message #172926] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 07:32 |
D. Stussy
Messages: 2
Registered: March 2011
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote in message
news:ileocv$pkg$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org...
> On 3/11/2011 8:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Twayne wrote:
>>
>>> Captain Paralytic<paul_lautman(at)yahoo(dot)com> typed:
>>>> No you are totally wrong. You do get the IP of the user,
>>>> but it will be registered to the ISP's address.
>>>
>>> Umm, the IP changes often, [.]
>>
>> To my knowledge, it has only changed once within the last 30 years. I
would
>> not call that often.
>>
>>
>> PointedEars
>
> IP addresses can change as often as every transmission, or as seldom as
> almost never. They are not reliable.
Every transmission: No.
Every SESSION: Yes.
One cannot have TCP sessions when it changes every transmission.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172932 is a reply to message #172931] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 08:37 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
D. Stussy wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
>> On 3/11/2011 8:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>> Captain Paralytic<paul_lautman(at)yahoo(dot)com> typed:
>>>> > No you are totally wrong. You do get the IP of the user,
>>>> > but it will be registered to the ISP's address.
>>>>
>>>> Umm, the IP changes often, [.]
>>>
>>> To my knowledge, it has only changed once within the last 30 years. I
>>> would not call that often.
>>
>> IP addresses can change as often as every transmission, or as seldom as
>> almost never. They are not reliable.
>
> Every transmission: No.
> Every SESSION: Yes.
>
> One cannot have TCP sessions when it changes every transmission.
My point was, of course, that IP actually is an abbreviation for the
Internet Protocol (frequently misused to refer to its addresses), of which
there are two versions: the initial version 4, conceived in 1981 (30 years
ago), and version 6, conceived in 1998 (which may yet save the internet as
we know it since IPv4 addresses run out last month.)
But Jerry appears to be humor-free, which does not bode well for his
intelligence. (As expected.)
PointedEars
--
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172936 is a reply to message #172931] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 13:16 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/12/2011 2:32 AM, D. Stussy wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle"<jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote in message
> news:ileocv$pkg$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org...
>> On 3/11/2011 8:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Captain Paralytic<paul_lautman(at)yahoo(dot)com> typed:
>>>> > No you are totally wrong. You do get the IP of the user,
>>>> > but it will be registered to the ISP's address.
>>>>
>>>> Umm, the IP changes often, [.]
>>>
>>> To my knowledge, it has only changed once within the last 30 years. I
> would
>>> not call that often.
>>>
>>>
>>> PointedEars
>>
>> IP addresses can change as often as every transmission, or as seldom as
>> almost never. They are not reliable.
>
> Every transmission: No.
> Every SESSION: Yes.
>
> One cannot have TCP sessions when it changes every transmission.
>
>
TCP does not have "sessions" - those are instituted by higher layers on
the protocol, and are independent of the IP address.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172937 is a reply to message #172932] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 13:21 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/12/2011 3:37 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> D. Stussy wrote:
>
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2011 8:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>> > Captain Paralytic<paul_lautman(at)yahoo(dot)com> typed:
>>>> >> No you are totally wrong. You do get the IP of the user,
>>>> >> but it will be registered to the ISP's address.
>>>> >
>>>> > Umm, the IP changes often, [.]
>>>>
>>>> To my knowledge, it has only changed once within the last 30 years. I
>>>> would not call that often.
>>>
>>> IP addresses can change as often as every transmission, or as seldom as
>>> almost never. They are not reliable.
>>
>> Every transmission: No.
>> Every SESSION: Yes.
>>
>> One cannot have TCP sessions when it changes every transmission.
>
> My point was, of course, that IP actually is an abbreviation for the
> Internet Protocol (frequently misused to refer to its addresses), of which
> there are two versions: the initial version 4, conceived in 1981 (30 years
> ago), and version 6, conceived in 1998 (which may yet save the internet as
> we know it since IPv4 addresses run out last month.)
>
> But Jerry appears to be humor-free, which does not bode well for his
> intelligence. (As expected.)
>
>
> PointedEars
And, as usual, you are wrong because you know absolutely nothing about
what you're talking about.
For the record, IPv4 and IPv6 refer ONLY to the number of bytes in the
IP address. They have NOTHING to do with the protocol itself, how often
IP addresses change or your lack of intelligence.
And IPv4 was heavily used by Arpanet back in the 1960's - which would
have been VERY hard to do if it hadn't been invented until 1981.
And finally, I never hear anyone (except you) use IP to refer to an
address. Everyone else uses the term "ip address" - which is correct.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172939 is a reply to message #172937] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 14:16 |
Roy Smith
Messages: 11
Registered: November 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
In article <ilfs0n$3ga$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
> For the record, IPv4 and IPv6 refer ONLY to the number of bytes in the
> IP address. They have NOTHING to do with the protocol itself
Actually, IPv4 and IPv6 *are* completely different (although related)
protocols. For sure, the most obvious difference between them is the
length of the addresses, but there are other differences as well. The
header formats are different, and there are fundamental differences in
how they deal with options, routing, MTU, traffic flows, etc. Wikipedia
does a decent job comparing the two
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6#Comparison_to_IPv4).
> IPv4 was heavily used by Arpanet back in the 1960's - which would
> have been VERY hard to do if it hadn't been invented until 1981.
To the best of my knowledge, the first RFC describing what we now call
IPv4 was RFC 760, published in January 1980. This was updated by RFC
791, published in September 1981. I'm not sure when the first
experimental versions were deployed, but it's absurd to say that IPv4
was in use (heavy or otherwise) in the 1960s.
> I never hear anyone (except you) use IP to refer to an address.
> Everyone else uses the term "ip address" - which is correct.
People often say "IP" when they mean "IP address" in casual
conversation. "I can't reach foo.com, can you try pinging it?". "OK,
what's the IP?" It's sloppy, but lots of casual conversation is sloppy,
and people figure out the meaning from context.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172940 is a reply to message #172939] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 15:02 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/12/2011 9:16 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article<ilfs0n$3ga$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org>,
> Jerry Stuckle<jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> For the record, IPv4 and IPv6 refer ONLY to the number of bytes in the
>> IP address. They have NOTHING to do with the protocol itself
>
> Actually, IPv4 and IPv6 *are* completely different (although related)
> protocols. For sure, the most obvious difference between them is the
> length of the addresses, but there are other differences as well. The
> header formats are different, and there are fundamental differences in
> how they deal with options, routing, MTU, traffic flows, etc. Wikipedia
> does a decent job comparing the two
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6#Comparison_to_IPv4).
>
Of course there have to be minor differences in the headers to identify
whether they're using IPv4 or IPv6. And there have been some minor
changes with the routing, etc - but those could easily have been
implemented in IPv4, also. They just weren't.
>> IPv4 was heavily used by Arpanet back in the 1960's - which would
>> have been VERY hard to do if it hadn't been invented until 1981.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, the first RFC describing what we now call
> IPv4 was RFC 760, published in January 1980. This was updated by RFC
> 791, published in September 1981. I'm not sure when the first
> experimental versions were deployed, but it's absurd to say that IPv4
> was in use (heavy or otherwise) in the 1960s.
>
Then what was I using in the early 70's while in college? And what was
I working on in the late 70's when I worked for IBM?
Arpanet used TCP/IP, and was in existence in the 60's. And it used 4
byte addresses.
RFC's came about LONG after Arpanet was developed.
>> I never hear anyone (except you) use IP to refer to an address.
>> Everyone else uses the term "ip address" - which is correct.
>
> People often say "IP" when they mean "IP address" in casual
> conversation. "I can't reach foo.com, can you try pinging it?". "OK,
> what's the IP?" It's sloppy, but lots of casual conversation is sloppy,
> and people figure out the meaning from context.
Yes, casual conversations, I agree. But not like "Pointed Head"
indicated.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172941 is a reply to message #172940] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 16:35 |
me
Messages: 192
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/12/2011 10:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 3/12/2011 9:16 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
>> In article<ilfs0n$3ga$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org>,
>> Jerry Stuckle<jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>>> For the record, IPv4 and IPv6 refer ONLY to the number of bytes in the
>>> IP address. They have NOTHING to do with the protocol itself
>>
>> Actually, IPv4 and IPv6 *are* completely different (although related)
>> protocols. For sure, the most obvious difference between them is the
>> length of the addresses, but there are other differences as well. The
>> header formats are different, and there are fundamental differences in
>> how they deal with options, routing, MTU, traffic flows, etc. Wikipedia
>> does a decent job comparing the two
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6#Comparison_to_IPv4).
>>
>
> Of course there have to be minor differences in the headers to identify
> whether they're using IPv4 or IPv6. And there have been some minor
> changes with the routing, etc - but those could easily have been
> implemented in IPv4, also. They just weren't.
>
>>> IPv4 was heavily used by Arpanet back in the 1960's - which would
>>> have been VERY hard to do if it hadn't been invented until 1981.
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, the first RFC describing what we now call
>> IPv4 was RFC 760, published in January 1980. This was updated by RFC
>> 791, published in September 1981. I'm not sure when the first
>> experimental versions were deployed, but it's absurd to say that IPv4
>> was in use (heavy or otherwise) in the 1960s.
>>
>
> Then what was I using in the early 70's while in college? And what was I
> working on in the late 70's when I worked for IBM?
>
> Arpanet used TCP/IP, and was in existence in the 60's. And it used 4
> byte addresses.
>
> RFC's came about LONG after Arpanet was developed.
>
>>> I never hear anyone (except you) use IP to refer to an address.
>>> Everyone else uses the term "ip address" - which is correct.
>>
>> People often say "IP" when they mean "IP address" in casual
>> conversation. "I can't reach foo.com, can you try pinging it?". "OK,
>> what's the IP?" It's sloppy, but lots of casual conversation is sloppy,
>> and people figure out the meaning from context.
>
> Yes, casual conversations, I agree. But not like "Pointed Head" indicated.
Mr. Stuckle, you can make your point without belittling yourself and others.
Bill B
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172942 is a reply to message #172941] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 16:59 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bill B wrote:
> On 3/12/2011 10:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 3/12/2011 9:16 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
>>> In article<ilfs0n$3ga$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org>,
>>> Jerry Stuckle<jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For the record, IPv4 and IPv6 refer ONLY to the number of bytes in the
>>>> IP address. They have NOTHING to do with the protocol itself
>>>
>>> Actually, IPv4 and IPv6 *are* completely different (although related)
>>> protocols. For sure, the most obvious difference between them is the
>>> length of the addresses, but there are other differences as well. The
>>> header formats are different, and there are fundamental differences in
>>> how they deal with options, routing, MTU, traffic flows, etc. Wikipedia
>>> does a decent job comparing the two
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6#Comparison_to_IPv4).
>>>
>>
>> Of course there have to be minor differences in the headers to identify
>> whether they're using IPv4 or IPv6. And there have been some minor
>> changes with the routing, etc - but those could easily have been
>> implemented in IPv4, also. They just weren't.
>>
>>>> IPv4 was heavily used by Arpanet back in the 1960's - which would
>>>> have been VERY hard to do if it hadn't been invented until 1981.
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge, the first RFC describing what we now call
>>> IPv4 was RFC 760, published in January 1980. This was updated by RFC
>>> 791, published in September 1981. I'm not sure when the first
>>> experimental versions were deployed, but it's absurd to say that IPv4
>>> was in use (heavy or otherwise) in the 1960s.
>>>
>>
>> Then what was I using in the early 70's while in college? And what was I
>> working on in the late 70's when I worked for IBM?
>>
Something that probably wasn't strictly what we understand IP to be..
PSN = packet switched networking as a way to use multiple redundant
routes, and to do stat muxing over smaller channeles, was developed as a
concept in the 60's.
And people soon realised that this made a global internetworking
thingy.. possible. Though 'The Internet' was a long way of as a term or
a reality.
This is a reasonable sumary
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml
As such, TCP actually precedes IP by some time
"One of the more interesting challenges was the transition of the
ARPANET host protocol from NCP to TCP/IP as of January 1, 1983. This was
a "flag-day" style transition, requiring all hosts to convert
simultaneously or be left having to communicate via rather ad-hoc
mechanisms. This transition was carefully planned within the community
over several years before it actually took place and went surprisingly
smoothly (but resulted in a distribution of buttons saying "I survived
the TCP/IP transition").
TCP/IP was adopted as a defense standard three years earlier in 1980.
This enabled defense to begin sharing in the DARPA Internet technology
base and led directly to the eventual partitioning of the military and
non- military communities. By 1983, ARPANET was being used by a
significant number of defense R&D and operational organizations. The
transition of ARPANET from NCP to TCP/IP permitted it to be split into a
MILNET supporting operational requirements and an ARPANET supporting
research needs.
Thus, by 1985, Internet was already well established as a technology
supporting a broad community of researchers and developers, and was
beginning to be used by other communities for daily computer
communications. Electronic mail was being used broadly across several
communities, often with different systems, but interconnection between
different mail systems was demonstrating the utility of broad based
electronic communications between people."
>> Arpanet used TCP/IP, and was in existence in the 60's. And it used 4
>> byte addresses.
No... see above. That wasn't TCP/IP.
>>
>> RFC's came about LONG after Arpanet was developed.
>>
As did TCP/IP
>>>> I never hear anyone (except you) use IP to refer to an address.
>>>> Everyone else uses the term "ip address" - which is correct.
>>>
>>> People often say "IP" when they mean "IP address" in casual
>>> conversation. "I can't reach foo.com, can you try pinging it?". "OK,
>>> what's the IP?" It's sloppy, but lots of casual conversation is sloppy,
>>> and people figure out the meaning from context.
>>
>> Yes, casual conversations, I agree. But not like "Pointed Head"
>> indicated.
>
> Mr. Stuckle, you can make your point without belittling yourself and
> others.
>
No, he can't.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172944 is a reply to message #172941] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 19:02 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/12/2011 11:35 AM, Bill B wrote:
> On 3/12/2011 10:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 3/12/2011 9:16 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
>>> In article<ilfs0n$3ga$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org>,
>>> Jerry Stuckle<jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For the record, IPv4 and IPv6 refer ONLY to the number of bytes in the
>>>> IP address. They have NOTHING to do with the protocol itself
>>>
>>> Actually, IPv4 and IPv6 *are* completely different (although related)
>>> protocols. For sure, the most obvious difference between them is the
>>> length of the addresses, but there are other differences as well. The
>>> header formats are different, and there are fundamental differences in
>>> how they deal with options, routing, MTU, traffic flows, etc. Wikipedia
>>> does a decent job comparing the two
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6#Comparison_to_IPv4).
>>>
>>
>> Of course there have to be minor differences in the headers to identify
>> whether they're using IPv4 or IPv6. And there have been some minor
>> changes with the routing, etc - but those could easily have been
>> implemented in IPv4, also. They just weren't.
>>
>>>> IPv4 was heavily used by Arpanet back in the 1960's - which would
>>>> have been VERY hard to do if it hadn't been invented until 1981.
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge, the first RFC describing what we now call
>>> IPv4 was RFC 760, published in January 1980. This was updated by RFC
>>> 791, published in September 1981. I'm not sure when the first
>>> experimental versions were deployed, but it's absurd to say that IPv4
>>> was in use (heavy or otherwise) in the 1960s.
>>>
>>
>> Then what was I using in the early 70's while in college? And what was I
>> working on in the late 70's when I worked for IBM?
>>
>> Arpanet used TCP/IP, and was in existence in the 60's. And it used 4
>> byte addresses.
>>
>> RFC's came about LONG after Arpanet was developed.
>>
>>>> I never hear anyone (except you) use IP to refer to an address.
>>>> Everyone else uses the term "ip address" - which is correct.
>>>
>>> People often say "IP" when they mean "IP address" in casual
>>> conversation. "I can't reach foo.com, can you try pinging it?". "OK,
>>> what's the IP?" It's sloppy, but lots of casual conversation is sloppy,
>>> and people figure out the meaning from context.
>>
>> Yes, casual conversations, I agree. But not like "Pointed Head"
>> indicated.
>
> Mr. Stuckle, you can make your point without belittling yourself and
> others.
>
> Bill B
As I've told you before - I really don't give a damn what you think.
You can take your self-righteous attitude and stuff it where the sun
doesn't shine. That way it will be right next to your head.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172947 is a reply to message #172932] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 19:14 |
Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In news:5333918(dot)IC5XRatLM0(at)PointedEars(dot)de,
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(at)web(dot)de> typed:
:: D. Stussy wrote:
::
::: "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
:::: On 3/11/2011 8:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
::::: Twayne wrote:
:::::: Captain Paralytic<paul_lautman(at)yahoo(dot)com> typed:
::::::: No you are totally wrong. You do get the IP of the
::::::: user, but it will be registered to the ISP's address.
::::::
:::::: Umm, the IP changes often, [.]
:::::
::::: To my knowledge, it has only changed once within the
::::: last 30 years. I would not call that often.
::::
:::: IP addresses can change as often as every transmission,
:::: or as seldom as almost never. They are not reliable.
:::
::: Every transmission: No.
::: Every SESSION: Yes.
:::
::: One cannot have TCP sessions when it changes every
::: transmission.
::
:: My point was, of course, that IP actually is an
:: abbreviation for the Internet Protocol (frequently misused
:: to refer to its addresses), of which there are two
:: versions: the initial version 4, conceived in 1981 (30
:: years ago), and version 6, conceived in 1998 (which may
:: yet save the internet as we know it since IPv4 addresses
:: run out last month.)
::
:: But Jerry appears to be humor-free, which does not bode
:: well for his intelligence. (As expected.)
::
::
:: PointedEars
:: --
:: Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
:: (This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but
:: no one
:: will want to steal it.)
:: -- from
:: <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>
:: (404-comp.)
Actually, if you want to try to protect your code somewhat, it can be
"compressed" which makes it very hard to read for humans. Most anyone can do
that with most any wysiwyg edtor/html generator.
HTH,
Twayne`
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172948 is a reply to message #172937] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 19:17 |
Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In news:ilfs0n$3ga$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> typed:
....
::
:: And IPv4 was heavily used by Arpanet back in the 1960's -
:: which would have been VERY hard to do if it hadn't been
:: invented until 1981.
No ... but it was very similar.
::
:: And finally, I never hear anyone (except you) use IP to
:: refer to an address. Everyone else uses the term "ip
:: address" - which is correct.
Then you're deaf. MANY peope shorten "IP Address" to simply IP, and it's
been done all over this newsgroup so you might be blind, too. Your penchant
for lies is outdone only by your intentional ignorance.
HTH,
Twayne`
:: --
:: ==================
:: Remove the "x" from my email address
:: Jerry Stuckle
:: JDS Computer Training Corp.
:: jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
:: ==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172949 is a reply to message #172940] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 19:19 |
Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In news:ilg1uk$oj1$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> typed:
:: On 3/12/2011 9:16 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
::: In article<ilfs0n$3ga$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org>,
::: Jerry Stuckle<jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
:::
:::: For the record, IPv4 and IPv6 refer ONLY to the number
:::: of bytes in the IP address. They have NOTHING to do
:::: with the protocol itself
LOL, that IS part of the protocol, dummy!
:::
::: Actually, IPv4 and IPv6 *are* completely different
::: (although related) protocols. For sure, the most obvious
::: difference between them is the length of the addresses,
::: but there are other differences as well. The header
::: formats are different, and there are fundamental
::: differences in how they deal with options, routing, MTU,
::: traffic flows, etc. Wikipedia does a decent job
::: comparing the two
::: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6#Comparison_to_IPv4).
:::
::
:: Of course there have to be minor differences in the
:: headers to identify whether they're using IPv4 or IPv6.
:: And there have been some minor changes with the routing,
:: etc - but those could easily have been implemented in
:: IPv4, also. They just weren't.
::
:::: IPv4 was heavily used by Arpanet back in the 1960's -
:::: which would have been VERY hard to do if it hadn't been
:::: invented until 1981.
:::
::: To the best of my knowledge, the first RFC describing
::: what we now call IPv4 was RFC 760, published in January
::: 1980. This was updated by RFC 791, published in
::: September 1981. I'm not sure when the first experimental
::: versions were deployed, but it's absurd to say that IPv4
::: was in use (heavy or otherwise) in the 1960s.
:::
::
:: Then what was I using in the early 70's while in college?
:: And what was I working on in the late 70's when I worked
:: for IBM?
::
:: Arpanet used TCP/IP, and was in existence in the 60's.
:: And it used 4 byte addresses.
::
:: RFC's came about LONG after Arpanet was developed.
::
:::: I never hear anyone (except you) use IP to refer to an
:::: address. Everyone else uses the term "ip address" -
:::: which is correct.
:::
::: People often say "IP" when they mean "IP address" in
::: casual conversation. "I can't reach foo.com, can you try
::: pinging it?". "OK, what's the IP?" It's sloppy, but
::: lots of casual conversation is sloppy, and people figure
::: out the meaning from context.
::
:: Yes, casual conversations, I agree. But not like "Pointed
:: Head" indicated.
::
:: --
:: ==================
:: Remove the "x" from my email address
:: Jerry Stuckle
:: JDS Computer Training Corp.
:: jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
:: ==================
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172952 is a reply to message #172944] |
Sat, 12 March 2011 23:28 |
me
Messages: 192
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/12/2011 2:02 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 3/12/2011 11:35 AM, Bill B wrote:
>> On 3/12/2011 10:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2011 9:16 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
>>>> In article<ilfs0n$3ga$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org>,
>>>> Jerry Stuckle<jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > For the record, IPv4 and IPv6 refer ONLY to the number of bytes in the
>>>> > IP address. They have NOTHING to do with the protocol itself
>>>>
>>>> Actually, IPv4 and IPv6 *are* completely different (although related)
>>>> protocols. For sure, the most obvious difference between them is the
>>>> length of the addresses, but there are other differences as well. The
>>>> header formats are different, and there are fundamental differences in
>>>> how they deal with options, routing, MTU, traffic flows, etc. Wikipedia
>>>> does a decent job comparing the two
>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6#Comparison_to_IPv4).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course there have to be minor differences in the headers to identify
>>> whether they're using IPv4 or IPv6. And there have been some minor
>>> changes with the routing, etc - but those could easily have been
>>> implemented in IPv4, also. They just weren't.
>>>
>>>> > IPv4 was heavily used by Arpanet back in the 1960's - which would
>>>> > have been VERY hard to do if it hadn't been invented until 1981.
>>>>
>>>> To the best of my knowledge, the first RFC describing what we now call
>>>> IPv4 was RFC 760, published in January 1980. This was updated by RFC
>>>> 791, published in September 1981. I'm not sure when the first
>>>> experimental versions were deployed, but it's absurd to say that IPv4
>>>> was in use (heavy or otherwise) in the 1960s.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then what was I using in the early 70's while in college? And what was I
>>> working on in the late 70's when I worked for IBM?
>>>
>>> Arpanet used TCP/IP, and was in existence in the 60's. And it used 4
>>> byte addresses.
>>>
>>> RFC's came about LONG after Arpanet was developed.
>>>
>>>> > I never hear anyone (except you) use IP to refer to an address.
>>>> > Everyone else uses the term "ip address" - which is correct.
>>>>
>>>> People often say "IP" when they mean "IP address" in casual
>>>> conversation. "I can't reach foo.com, can you try pinging it?". "OK,
>>>> what's the IP?" It's sloppy, but lots of casual conversation is sloppy,
>>>> and people figure out the meaning from context.
>>>
>>> Yes, casual conversations, I agree. But not like "Pointed Head"
>>> indicated.
>>
>> Mr. Stuckle, you can make your point without belittling yourself and
>> others.
>>
>> Bill B
>
> As I've told you before - I really don't give a damn what you think. You
> can take your self-righteous attitude and stuff it where the sun doesn't
> shine. That way it will be right next to your head.
Your belligerence is unconvincing, Mr. Stuckle. Your opinion of your
opinion of my thinking is beside the point. Civil discourse is the point.
Bill B
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172953 is a reply to message #172952] |
Sun, 13 March 2011 02:33 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/12/2011 6:28 PM, Bill B wrote:
> On 3/12/2011 2:02 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 3/12/2011 11:35 AM, Bill B wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2011 10:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2011 9:16 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
>>>> > In article<ilfs0n$3ga$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org>,
>>>> > Jerry Stuckle<jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> For the record, IPv4 and IPv6 refer ONLY to the number of bytes in
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> IP address. They have NOTHING to do with the protocol itself
>>>> >
>>>> > Actually, IPv4 and IPv6 *are* completely different (although related)
>>>> > protocols. For sure, the most obvious difference between them is the
>>>> > length of the addresses, but there are other differences as well. The
>>>> > header formats are different, and there are fundamental differences in
>>>> > how they deal with options, routing, MTU, traffic flows, etc.
>>>> > Wikipedia
>>>> > does a decent job comparing the two
>>>> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6#Comparison_to_IPv4).
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Of course there have to be minor differences in the headers to identify
>>>> whether they're using IPv4 or IPv6. And there have been some minor
>>>> changes with the routing, etc - but those could easily have been
>>>> implemented in IPv4, also. They just weren't.
>>>>
>>>> >> IPv4 was heavily used by Arpanet back in the 1960's - which would
>>>> >> have been VERY hard to do if it hadn't been invented until 1981.
>>>> >
>>>> > To the best of my knowledge, the first RFC describing what we now call
>>>> > IPv4 was RFC 760, published in January 1980. This was updated by RFC
>>>> > 791, published in September 1981. I'm not sure when the first
>>>> > experimental versions were deployed, but it's absurd to say that IPv4
>>>> > was in use (heavy or otherwise) in the 1960s.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Then what was I using in the early 70's while in college? And what
>>>> was I
>>>> working on in the late 70's when I worked for IBM?
>>>>
>>>> Arpanet used TCP/IP, and was in existence in the 60's. And it used 4
>>>> byte addresses.
>>>>
>>>> RFC's came about LONG after Arpanet was developed.
>>>>
>>>> >> I never hear anyone (except you) use IP to refer to an address.
>>>> >> Everyone else uses the term "ip address" - which is correct.
>>>> >
>>>> > People often say "IP" when they mean "IP address" in casual
>>>> > conversation. "I can't reach foo.com, can you try pinging it?". "OK,
>>>> > what's the IP?" It's sloppy, but lots of casual conversation is
>>>> > sloppy,
>>>> > and people figure out the meaning from context.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, casual conversations, I agree. But not like "Pointed Head"
>>>> indicated.
>>>
>>> Mr. Stuckle, you can make your point without belittling yourself and
>>> others.
>>>
>>> Bill B
>>
>> As I've told you before - I really don't give a damn what you think. You
>> can take your self-righteous attitude and stuff it where the sun doesn't
>> shine. That way it will be right next to your head.
>
> Your belligerence is unconvincing, Mr. Stuckle. Your opinion of your
> opinion of my thinking is beside the point. Civil discourse is the point.
>
> Bill B
As I've told you before - I really don't give a damn what you think. You
can take your self-righteous attitude and stuff it where the sun doesn't
shine. That way it will be right next to your head.
You don't like my attitude? I REALLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN!
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172954 is a reply to message #172953] |
Sun, 13 March 2011 14:58 |
Luuk
Messages: 329
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 13-03-2011 03:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> You don't like my attitude? I REALLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN!
>
Why are you not interested in the opinion of others,
They might have something usefull to say,
I am not saying they are right, or wrong, but 'NOT GIVING A DAMN' is
.........off topic?
If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont react
on his post(s)....
--
Luuk
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172957 is a reply to message #172954] |
Sun, 13 March 2011 17:32 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/13/2011 10:58 AM, Luuk wrote:
> On 13-03-2011 03:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> You don't like my attitude? I REALLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN!
>>
>
> Why are you not interested in the opinion of others,
> They might have something usefull to say,
> I am not saying they are right, or wrong, but 'NOT GIVING A DAMN' is
> ........off topic?
>
> If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont react
> on his post(s)....
>
>
Luuk, please read the previous posts and determine who started this
off-topic crap. This is typical of Bill B - he has a self-righteous
attitude and complains any time someone posts using words he doesn't like.
And quite frankly, I really don't give a damn what someone like him
thinks. And as long as he keeps on with his self-righteous attitude, I
will keep telling him what an anal orifice he is.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172958 is a reply to message #172957] |
Sun, 13 March 2011 17:46 |
Luuk
Messages: 329
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 13-03-2011 18:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 3/13/2011 10:58 AM, Luuk wrote:
>> On 13-03-2011 03:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't like my attitude? I REALLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN!
>>>
>>
>> Why are you not interested in the opinion of others,
>> They might have something usefull to say,
>> I am not saying they are right, or wrong, but 'NOT GIVING A DAMN' is
>> ........off topic?
>>
>> If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont react
>> on his post(s)....
>>
>>
i wil repeat myself:
If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont react
on (t)his post(s)....
--
Luuk
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172959 is a reply to message #172958] |
Sun, 13 March 2011 19:35 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/13/2011 1:46 PM, Luuk wrote:
> On 13-03-2011 18:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 3/13/2011 10:58 AM, Luuk wrote:
>>> On 13-03-2011 03:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You don't like my attitude? I REALLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you not interested in the opinion of others,
>>> They might have something usefull to say,
>>> I am not saying they are right, or wrong, but 'NOT GIVING A DAMN' is
>>> ........off topic?
>>>
>>> If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont react
>>> on his post(s)....
>>>
>>>
>
> i wil repeat myself:
>
> If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont react
> on (t)his post(s)....
>
>
And I will repeat myself. As long as he keeps on with his
self-righteous attitude, I will keep telling him what an anal orifice he
is.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172960 is a reply to message #172959] |
Sun, 13 March 2011 21:52 |
spambait
Messages: 35
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <ilj69g$iab$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org>, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
> On 3/13/2011 1:46 PM, Luuk wrote:
>> On 13-03-2011 18:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2011 10:58 AM, Luuk wrote:
>>>> On 13-03-2011 03:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > You don't like my attitude? I REALLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN!
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Why are you not interested in the opinion of others,
>>>> They might have something usefull to say,
>>>> I am not saying they are right, or wrong, but 'NOT GIVING A DAMN' is
>>>> ........off topic?
>>>>
>>>> If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont react
>>>> on his post(s)....
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> i wil repeat myself:
>>
>> If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont react
>> on (t)his post(s)....
>>
>>
>
> And I will repeat myself. As long as he keeps on with his
> self-righteous attitude, I will keep telling him what an anal orifice he
> is.
>
And behaving like an anal orifice yourself accomplishes what, exactly?
Surely it should be obvious to you by this time that your repeated suggestions
on where he can put his exhortations have had no more effect on him than the
exhortations have had on you. Considerably less, actually, since you appear to
be having no effect at all on him, while it's clear that he's annoying you.
Hint: he's winning. And he'll continue to do so until you wise up and ignore
him.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172961 is a reply to message #172960] |
Sun, 13 March 2011 21:28 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <ilj69g$iab$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org>, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>> On 3/13/2011 1:46 PM, Luuk wrote:
>>> On 13-03-2011 18:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2011 10:58 AM, Luuk wrote:
>>>> > On 13-03-2011 03:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> >> You don't like my attitude? I REALLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN!
>>>> >>
>>>> > Why are you not interested in the opinion of others,
>>>> > They might have something usefull to say,
>>>> > I am not saying they are right, or wrong, but 'NOT GIVING A DAMN' is
>>>> > ........off topic?
>>>> >
>>>> > If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont react
>>>> > on his post(s)....
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>> i wil repeat myself:
>>>
>>> If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont react
>>> on (t)his post(s)....
>>>
>>>
>> And I will repeat myself. As long as he keeps on with his
>> self-righteous attitude, I will keep telling him what an anal orifice he
>> is.
>>
> And behaving like an anal orifice yourself accomplishes what, exactly?
>
> Surely it should be obvious to you by this time that your repeated suggestions
> on where he can put his exhortations have had no more effect on him than the
> exhortations have had on you. Considerably less, actually, since you appear to
> be having no effect at all on him, while it's clear that he's annoying you.
>
> Hint: he's winning. And he'll continue to do so until you wise up and ignore
> him.
Hint: Kill file is useful in this context.
Jerry is displaying the same sorts of characteristics I have noted in
dementia sufferers who are a touch paranoid. In short everything is
about Jerry, and whether he is right or wrong. Not about the topic under
discussion.
Experience showed me that the best thing was to agree with everything
said, and totally discount it. In the case of someone you cared about.
In the case of someone you didn't care about, just 'walk on by'...
Jerry has issues and problems. Unless his a friend of yours, Luuk,
accept that everyone here knows this, and makes allowances.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172962 is a reply to message #172961] |
Sun, 13 March 2011 21:37 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/13/2011 5:28 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <ilj69g$iab$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org>, Jerry Stuckle
>> <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2011 1:46 PM, Luuk wrote:
>>>> On 13-03-2011 18:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> > On 3/13/2011 10:58 AM, Luuk wrote:
>>>> >> On 13-03-2011 03:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> >>> You don't like my attitude? I REALLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> Why are you not interested in the opinion of others,
>>>> >> They might have something usefull to say,
>>>> >> I am not saying they are right, or wrong, but 'NOT GIVING A DAMN' is
>>>> >> ........off topic?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont
>>>> >> react
>>>> >> on his post(s)....
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> i wil repeat myself:
>>>>
>>>> If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont
>>>> react
>>>> on (t)his post(s)....
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And I will repeat myself. As long as he keeps on with his
>>> self-righteous attitude, I will keep telling him what an anal orifice
>>> he is.
>>>
>> And behaving like an anal orifice yourself accomplishes what, exactly?
>>
>> Surely it should be obvious to you by this time that your repeated
>> suggestions on where he can put his exhortations have had no more
>> effect on him than the exhortations have had on you. Considerably
>> less, actually, since you appear to be having no effect at all on him,
>> while it's clear that he's annoying you.
>>
>> Hint: he's winning. And he'll continue to do so until you wise up and
>> ignore him.
> Hint: Kill file is useful in this context.
>
> Jerry is displaying the same sorts of characteristics I have noted in
> dementia sufferers who are a touch paranoid. In short everything is
> about Jerry, and whether he is right or wrong. Not about the topic under
> discussion.
>
> Experience showed me that the best thing was to agree with everything
> said, and totally discount it. In the case of someone you cared about.
> In the case of someone you didn't care about, just 'walk on by'...
>
> Jerry has issues and problems. Unless his a friend of yours, Luuk,
> accept that everyone here knows this, and makes allowances.
LOL, from a has-been ditch digger who got fired because he couldn't
figure out when end of the shovel to use.
No matter you won't use your real name. You don't want anyone to know
what a pathetic has-been you are.
And everyone here sees it.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172963 is a reply to message #172947] |
Sun, 13 March 2011 23:45 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Twayne wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(at)web(dot)de> typed:
> :: --
> :: Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
> :: (This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but
> :: no one
> :: will want to steal it.)
> :: -- from
> :: <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>
> :: (404-comp.)
>
> Actually, if you want to try to protect your code somewhat, it can be
> "compressed" which makes it very hard to read for humans. Most anyone can
> do that with most any wysiwyg edtor/html generator.
Humorlessness appears to be as infectious a disease as cluelessness.
(It's a sig, goddamnit!)
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172965 is a reply to message #172957] |
Mon, 14 March 2011 02:12 |
me
Messages: 192
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/13/2011 1:32 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 3/13/2011 10:58 AM, Luuk wrote:
>> On 13-03-2011 03:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't like my attitude? I REALLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN!
>>>
>>
>> Why are you not interested in the opinion of others,
>> They might have something usefull to say,
>> I am not saying they are right, or wrong, but 'NOT GIVING A DAMN' is
>> ........off topic?
>>
>> If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont react
>> on his post(s)....
>>
>>
>
> Luuk, please read the previous posts and determine who started this
> off-topic crap. This is typical of Bill B - he has a self-righteous
> attitude and complains any time someone posts using words he doesn't like.
There is no evidence, Mr. Stuckle, to support your contention that I
draw your attention to certain words. I've passed on far worse that what
you have to offer. I draw your attention to being a bully.
There is evidence I started this, if by starting this you refer to
calling you out on being a bully. Agreed. I started it.
Bill B
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172966 is a reply to message #172965] |
Mon, 14 March 2011 02:42 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/13/2011 10:12 PM, Bill B wrote:
> On 3/13/2011 1:32 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 3/13/2011 10:58 AM, Luuk wrote:
>>> On 13-03-2011 03:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You don't like my attitude? I REALLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you not interested in the opinion of others,
>>> They might have something usefull to say,
>>> I am not saying they are right, or wrong, but 'NOT GIVING A DAMN' is
>>> ........off topic?
>>>
>>> If you really dont care about his opinion, than please simple dont react
>>> on his post(s)....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Luuk, please read the previous posts and determine who started this
>> off-topic crap. This is typical of Bill B - he has a self-righteous
>> attitude and complains any time someone posts using words he doesn't
>> like.
>
> There is no evidence, Mr. Stuckle, to support your contention that I
> draw your attention to certain words. I've passed on far worse that what
> you have to offer. I draw your attention to being a bully.
>
> There is evidence I started this, if by starting this you refer to
> calling you out on being a bully. Agreed. I started it.
>
> Bill B
Yes, I agree. You are a self-righteous anal orifice who has absolutely
nothing positive to add to this or any other conversation. Take your
attitude and stick it where the sun doesn't shine, so it can be right
next to your head.
But you are very typical of a lot of trolls. Always strutting your shit
and blaming everyone else for your problems.
If you don't like what I say, then don't read it. Because I really
don't give a damn.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172967 is a reply to message #172965] |
Mon, 14 March 2011 02:49 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bill B wrote:
>
> There is no evidence, Mr. Stuckle, to support your contention that I
> draw your attention to certain words. I've passed on far worse that what
> you have to offer. I draw your attention to being a bully.
>
> There is evidence I started this, if by starting this you refer to
> calling you out on being a bully. Agreed. I started it.
>
> Bill B
Bill. Put a sock in it old boy. Or you will join Jerry in the killfile.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172968 is a reply to message #172967] |
Mon, 14 March 2011 04:20 |
spambait
Messages: 35
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <iljvo6$fd5$1(at)news(dot)albasani(dot)net>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp(at)invalid(dot)invalid> wrote:
> Bill B wrote:
>
>>
>> There is no evidence, Mr. Stuckle, to support your contention that I
>> draw your attention to certain words. I've passed on far worse that what
>> you have to offer. I draw your attention to being a bully.
>>
>> There is evidence I started this, if by starting this you refer to
>> calling you out on being a bully. Agreed. I started it.
>>
>> Bill B
>
> Bill. Put a sock in it old boy. Or you will join Jerry in the killfile.
>
I've already kf'd him. Jerry at least provides some useful technical
information from time to time, which is why I haven't kf'd him too -- yet. If
he doesn't figure out pretty soon that Bill isn't paying any attention to him,
he'll join Bill in the killfile.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lookup zip by IP address [message #172972 is a reply to message #172931] |
Mon, 14 March 2011 11:23 |
Michael Fesser
Messages: 215
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
.oO(D. Stussy)
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote in message
> news:ileocv$pkg$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org...
>>
>> IP addresses can change as often as every transmission, or as seldom as
>> almost never. They are not reliable.
>
> Every transmission: No.
> Every SESSION: Yes.
>
> One cannot have TCP sessions when it changes every transmission.
Every single request may come from a different IP address. Sessions have
nothing to do with TCP and are not bound to a particular IP address.
Micha
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]