On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 21:51:13 -0500, Jon Steiger wrote:
>At 08:40 PM 3/3/98 -0600, Michael Clark wrote:
>>Jack Snodgrass wrote:
>>>
>>> I haven't got as many responses to the dakota-truck.net as
>>> I had hoped to get. I only counted two responses. I think that
>>> I'm going to go ahead and get dakota-truck.net anyway and
>>> worry about paying for it when the bill comes due.
>>>
>>> If anyone has any reasons why I should NOT get dakota-truck.net
>>> or get dakota-truck.org instead... let me know ASAP. I'm going to
>>> request the name on Wed. morning. It should probably be active
>>> by Thursday morning.
>>>
>>> Jack
>>
>>
>>I think org would be more appropriate, as that is the designation for
>>organization. Net refers to communications network, for example my ISP
>>is wt.net or World Trade Network Inc. or something. The Impalla guys
>>have one I think it is www.impallass.org or something to that effect.
>>In my opinion org would be more appropriate.
>
>
> IMHO, dakota-truck.net has a nicer "ring" to it, but I definitely agree
>with Mike that org is more technically correct, if that counts for
>anything on the Internet these days... Of course, org is supposed to
>be for non-profit organizations, which (legally) we aren't. (That is,
>I'm not making a profit, (or trying to make a profit) but I don't have a
>DBA or non-profit tax status or anything either.) So, I guess we're
>wrong either way. :-) We can either pretend to be a non-profit
>organization or an ISP. :-)
Actually... since you bring it up... dakota-truck.net would be
doing web page stuff ( redirecting ) and COULD do mail like
jack@dakota-truck.net and mclark@dakota-truck.net so it could
be considered an ISP. I mean I've been running cybermail.net
for two years and the only person that calls in is my father-in-law.
All of the other mail users just access their mail boxes via the
internet. I think that we can get by with .net.
Jack
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:20 EDT