7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@???
References: <20111002103608.GR4221@???> <4E8893CC.6010105@???>
<20111002182454.GU4221@???>
In-Reply-To: <20111002182454.GU4221@???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on bitfolk.com at Sun,
02 Oct 2011 18:40:17 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 212.13.195.97
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bitfolk-users@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd2.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT
shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run, due to a shortcircuited rule
* -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] entropy.lon.bitfolk.com renumbered;
old IP address will stop responding on Sunday 30th October 2011
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 18:40:19 -0000
On 02/10/11 20:24, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello Dom,
>
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 06:39:40PM +0200, bitfolk-users@??? wrote:
>> On 02/10/11 12:36, Andy Smith wrote:
>>> entropy.lon.bitfolk.com [212.13.194.102] has been renumbered to
>>> 85.119.80.215. If you're making use of our free entropy service[1]
>>
>> Maybe I'm easily impressed, but I'm impressed.
>
> :-) impressed by the paranoia / nerdiness?
The comprehensiveness, as it were.
Apologies to the list for not giving my name in the previous
post - hopefully this one will have it.
From phl.jns@??? Mon Oct 03 13:50:28 2011
Received: from mail-pz0-f42.google.com ([209.85.210.42])
by bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <phl.jns@???>) id 1RAiuW-0008WP-08
for users@???; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:50:28 +0000
Received: by pzk1 with SMTP id 1so11800045pzk.1
for <users@???>; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 06:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type; bh=age6B4v5cjLejS4JUJzkxChphmAojJHnpaDncVrrX+g=;
b=YQpnUSMaLhNawgDEf7ySc+uYDfTGGM2xU8g1AAh3zsN5TMf6q6D2ZlxUjaNUE659Ol
IRFpy5v8Nupvv23CQGLJ76SmNignIPUtx3YIkcVsG4FC9AscD2iC7uWCWMCfNAYmwEkN
LBDIb22l/hAoSuOqj/0Y0LcnWoXSiA26NcGlo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.32.132 with SMTP id j4mr1222054pbi.62.1317649815843; Mon,
03 Oct 2011 06:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.128.14 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 06:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <
