Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Taxi_Driver]

Here's the short answer in plain english....

You are NOT sending an e-mail via Tiscali (or any other ISP) unless you are directly connected to them.

In further plain english....

If you connect via (say) the 3 network, you will have no problem receiving e-mail to your Tiscali account in Outlook....but you won't be sending as you are not actually authenticated on their network.

The same rule applies to all ISP's, has done for years, and there isn't a setting in the world you can modify to change this (your ISP will never give you that much control).

If you want to send e-mail EVERY time when you are connected to the net through whatever connection, then you'll need to sort your own mail server.

Not entirely true - some ISPs do allow authenticated relay from foreign IPs.

But, you're right, using a non ISP mail server is a cure. Gmail now allow you to use your own domain for the past year or so, and provide POP3/IMAP/SMTP for free if you can't be bothered to set up own mail server.

In all cases, an invalid SPF will probably knacker your chances of ruling the universe though

Had a butchers on my tiscali webmail.....couldnt find anything that allows mail to be sent from another ISP 

[Vamps]

Not sure about the technical stuff,  but I am with BT and can use my 3dongle to email quite happily.  I am even recognised on sites using this, not sure how this is so but is.

[KillerWatt]

Had a butchers on my tiscali webmail.....couldnt find anything that allows mail to be sent from another ISP 

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest TD.

Tiscali are universally recognised as one of the worst providers in the UK, and I wouldn't pi$$ on them if they were on fire.

In fact, I'd choose AOL over Tiscali any day (and believe me, that IS saying something).

[TheBoy]

Had a butchers on my tiscali webmail.....couldnt find anything that allows mail to be sent from another ISP 

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest TD.

Tiscali are universally recognised as one of the worst providers in the UK, and I wouldn't pi$$ on them if they were on fire.

In fact, I'd choose AOL over Tiscali any day (and believe me, that IS saying something).

As a wholesale provider, they are well regarded within the industry.

At a consumer level, they could have handled things a little better, particularly around the way they handle heavy users, and their tech support (their 2nd and 3rd lines are not too bad to be honest).

Generally, Tiscali subscribers are reasonably happy, but 'not normal' users are better looking elsewhere

[Taxi_Driver]

Had a butchers on my tiscali webmail.....couldnt find anything that allows mail to be sent from another ISP 

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest TD.

Tiscali are universally recognised as one of the worst providers in the UK, and I wouldn't pi$$ on them if they were on fire.

In fact, I'd choose AOL over Tiscali any day (and believe me, that IS saying something).

Ive used Tiscsali for quite a few years now and have to say....ive only had one issue with them...which after i got an email addy of a 3rd line technician...and not a 'read the ready made text' polly.....it got sorted quickly....

Tho however they dont like P2P users that take the urine.....i do use P2P but dont use it like i think you do...

[KillerWatt]

Generally, Tiscali subscribers are reasonably happy, but 'not normal' users are better looking elsewhere

Whaddya mean by 'not normal'?

You suggesting I'm nuts or summit? 

Tho however they dont like P2P users that take the urine.....i do use P2P but dont use it like i think you do...

I've never used P2P TD, far too slow for me.
All my downloads come from direct links to servers that can outstrip my download speeds with ease..

[Taxi_Driver]

Generally, Tiscali subscribers are reasonably happy, but 'not normal' users are better looking elsewhere

Whaddya mean by 'not normal'?

You suggesting I'm nuts or summit? 

Tho however they dont like P2P users that take the urine.....i do use P2P but dont use it like i think you do...

I've never used P2P TD, far too slow for me.
All my downloads come from direct links to servers that can outstrip my download speeds with ease..

Whatever method.....its the same thing 

[KillerWatt]

Whatever method.....its the same thing 

Not quite TD.

Tisacali & their ilk will quite happily promise you X amount of bandwidth, but you start pushing that to anywhere remotely near it's limit and you'll be getting the crappy letter.

Bandwidth costs money, and all these "cheap" ISP's that are still relying on BT simply cannot deliver what they promise.

The old adage of "you get what you pay for" applies very much in this example I'm afraid.

[TheBoy]

Generally, Tiscali subscribers are reasonably happy, but 'not normal' users are better looking elsewhere

Whaddya mean by 'not normal'?

You suggesting I'm nuts or summit? 

Tho however they dont like P2P users that take the urine.....i do use P2P but dont use it like i think you do...

I've never used P2P TD, far too slow for me.
All my downloads come from direct links to servers that can outstrip my download speeds with ease..

For 'normal' for 90% of internet users, less than 100Gb (or thereabouts, dont have current stats here) per YEAR is enough

The rest tend to be p2p and nntp users. About a third of these are the mikey takers.

Business practices dictate that you need to dump those very high users, keeping the lower users.  Moreso if you are on IPStream connections (every ISP made a right pigs ear of Datastream), as the central costs are unstainable - an 8Mb line maxed out 24/7 will cost the ISP way over £1000 per month for that single subscriber.

LLU can tolerate to an extent as the takeup has been relatively poor (and will remain so as WBC gets rolled out, LLU doesn't sound so fantastic to most consumers), but when capcity starts to get saturated, do you thing they will kill heavy users, or put in extra capacity.......

[Taxi_Driver]

Whatever method.....its the same thing 

Not quite TD.

Tisacali & their ilk will quite happily promise you X amount of bandwidth, but you start pushing that to anywhere remotely near it's limit and you'll be getting the crappy letter.

Bandwidth costs money, and all these "cheap" ISP's that are still relying on BT simply cannot deliver what they promise.

The old adage of "you get what you pay for" applies very much in this example I'm afraid.

I agree, you get what you pay for 

That said....i get 8M download from Tiscali.....for a fiver a month (after taking out £10/month phone line connection)......

I downloaded a 3.1GB file last week in 1hr30mins....not bad  and i dont get 'crappy letters' 

[KillerWatt]

For 'normal' for 90% of internet users, less than 100Gb (or thereabouts, dont have current stats here) per YEAR is enough

100GB per YEAR??

Jeez, I can spank that with ease in a day.
Gotta ask J, where did you get that figure from?

LLU can tolerate to an extent as the takeup has been relatively poor (and will remain so as WBC gets rolled out, LLU doesn't sound so fantastic to most consumers), but when capcity starts to get saturated, do you thing they will kill heavy users, or put in extra capacity.......

At the rate LLU is rolling out (BT have only just STARTED doing what others were doing 5 years ago), I reckon the fibre and mini DSLAM's will be in every cab in the UK by the time it gets to the stage where standard ADSL is today.

[KillerWatt]

I downloaded a 3.1GB file last week in 1hr30mins....not bad  and i dont get 'crappy letters' 

Do two of them a day, for 30 days.....your crappy letter will be coming first class 


PS

A 3.1GB file in 1hr 30 gives you a true download speed of 4Mbits

[TheBoy]

For 'normal' for 90% of internet users, less than 100Gb (or thereabouts, dont have current stats here) per YEAR is enough

100GB per YEAR??

Jeez, I can spank that with ease in a day.
Gotta ask J, where did you get that figure from?

LLU can tolerate to an extent as the takeup has been relatively poor (and will remain so as WBC gets rolled out, LLU doesn't sound so fantastic to most consumers), but when capcity starts to get saturated, do you thing they will kill heavy users, or put in extra capacity.......

At the rate LLU is rolling out (BT have only just STARTED doing what others were doing 5 years ago), I reckon the fibre and mini DSLAM's will be in every cab in the UK by the time it gets to the stage where standard ADSL is today.

Lets just say I get to see such things at work

As to llu, consumers dont understand or care. They like the headline figures.  llu providers wont have that edge any more, and lets face it, their pentration has been abysmally bad up to now any way.

BT need to step up rollout of FTTC and FTTP, as no llu could ever do that.

[KillerWatt]

llu providers wont have that edge any more, and lets face it, their pentration has been abysmally bad up to now any way.

Of course the penetration has been bad J...the provider is having to pay for the kit that BT should have had in place 10 years ago.

[TheBoy]

llu providers wont have that edge any more, and lets face it, their pentration has been abysmally bad up to now any way.

Of course the penetration has been bad J...the provider is having to pay for the kit that BT should have had in place 10 years ago.

Interesting comment, why should BT have fitted it rather than anyone else?  Could additionally argue, why should BT - a private commercial entity - allow other providers to use its kit or its premises or its lines.

The 'regulator' OFTEL/COM has been the biggest barrier to llu anyway, muppets that they are.