maryweiland

Hi,
My fiance and I are planning our honeymoon in Australia. We're
thinking about spending a couple of weeks driving the east coast,
starting in Sydney and going north to Townsville. From there, we're
planning on flying to Darwin and driving south to Uluru before flying
back to Sydney. We'll be in the Northern Territory for about 17 days.
Can you recommend good camping/canoeing outfitters in Darwin or
Nitmiluk? We're thinking of seeing the following things. Would you
swap any out for something not on the list?

Sydney
1/2 day in Port Stephens (do we need more time here? - is Broughton
Island worth a visit?)
Dorrigo Nat'l Park
Byron Bay
Surfer's Paradise
Lamington Nat'l Park
Rainbow Beach/Hervey Bay
Fraser Island (just a one day tour)
Lady Elliot Island or Heron Island
Darwin
Kakadu
Nitmiluk
Kings Canyon
Uluru
Alice Springs

Roger & Lorraine Martin

Two weeks maybe pushing it a bit on the East Coast drive.
Just driving straight through from Sydney to Townsville is a long
three/four day drive. Have a look at www.whereis.com.au
for approximate driving times and distances.

Maybe a safer trip would be drive Sydney to Hervey Bay, drive
back to Brisbane, fly to one of the Barrier Reef islands, fly back
to Brisbane, fly to Darwin.

As for the itinerary I would add these
Foster Tuncurry/ Mial (sp?) Lakes NSW
South West Rocks NSW
Coffs Harbour NSW
In fact any of the small coastal towns along the coast are worth
the few minutes drive off the main highway.
Forget Surfers Paradise unless you like noise, traffic lights,
high rise buildings and over priced accomodation.
The Sunshine Coast North of Brisbane is well worth the
effort - Caloundra to Noosa. You can do a trip to Fraser Island
from Noosa driving along the beach. But a day trip is a bit hurried
and you will only see the Southern part of the Island. You can also
do the same trip from Rainbow Beach, or rent a 4x4 and go where
you want to go on Fraser or Cooloola National Park.
A trip into the Noosa River Everglades can be fun - plenty of Kayak
hire companies are in the area.
Hervey Bay is worth the visit - good if the whales are in the bay. You
can do a North of Fraser trip from Hervey Bay.
The trip North to Townsville from Hervey Bay is a bit boring if you
are a beach person - once inside the Barrier Reef the beaches
become muddy/gritty with lots of mangoes. Once North of
Rockhampton crocodiles are a real concern and you should only
swim or get near water that is marked as being safe for swimming.
However the Islands are absolutely magic - real paradise stuff.


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
    > Hi,
    > My fiance and I are planning our honeymoon in Australia. We're
    > thinking about spending a couple of weeks driving the east coast,
    > starting in Sydney and going north to Townsville. From there, we're
    > planning on flying to Darwin and driving south to Uluru before flying
    > back to Sydney. We'll be in the Northern Territory for about 17 days.
    > Can you recommend good camping/canoeing outfitters in Darwin or
    > Nitmiluk? We're thinking of seeing the following things. Would you
    > swap any out for something not on the list?
    > Sydney
    > 1/2 day in Port Stephens (do we need more time here? - is Broughton
    > Island worth a visit?)
    > Dorrigo Nat'l Park
    > Byron Bay
    > Surfer's Paradise
    > Lamington Nat'l Park
    > Rainbow Beach/Hervey Bay
    > Fraser Island (just a one day tour)
    > Lady Elliot Island or Heron Island
    > Darwin
    > Kakadu
    > Nitmiluk
    > Kings Canyon
    > Uluru
    > Alice Springs

Jeff

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
    > Hi,
    > My fiance and I are planning our honeymoon in Australia. We're
    > thinking about spending a couple of weeks driving the east coast,
    > starting in Sydney and going north to Townsville. From there, we're
    > planning on flying to Darwin and driving south to Uluru before flying
    > back to Sydney. We'll be in the Northern Territory for about 17 days.
    > Can you recommend good camping/canoeing outfitters in Darwin or
    > Nitmiluk? We're thinking of seeing the following things. Would you
    > swap any out for something not on the list?
    > Sydney
    > 1/2 day in Port Stephens (do we need more time here? - is Broughton
    > Island worth a visit?)
    > Dorrigo Nat'l Park
    > Byron Bay
    > Surfer's Paradise
    > Lamington Nat'l Park
    > Rainbow Beach/Hervey Bay
    > Fraser Island (just a one day tour)
    > Lady Elliot Island or Heron Island
    > Darwin
    > Kakadu
    > Nitmiluk
    > Kings Canyon
    > Uluru
    > Alice Springs


There is a lot to see in this list in a few short weeks.

I would skip Hervery Bay and Rainbow, spend more time on Fraser.
Between Heron island and Townsville is the Whitsunday Islands. Do not miss
the Whitsundays!!!

Jeff
http://community.webshots.com/user/surfoz

Dave Proctor

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:34:14 +1000, "Jeff" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Jeff, completely off-topic, but you might want to change the spam
filter in your email address so that the spam-block is in the domain
name rater than user name.

When spam is sent to the email address you are using it does actually
get to the OzEmail mail server, which then bounces it. That is then
two email messages, the spam and the bounce.

By placing the spam-block in the email address, the domain will not
resolve, so it won't even get sent, thereby eliminating two emails
from the traffic. Two emails is bugger all, but when you take into
account all of the spam out there it will make a difference if
everybody does it.

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

Jeff

Hi Dave

Thanks for the tip, i have changed it as per your suggestion.

Cheers
Jeff.


"Dave Proctor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:34:14 +1000, "Jeff" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    > Jeff, completely off-topic, but you might want to change the spam
    > filter in your email address so that the spam-block is in the domain
    > name rater than user name.
    > When spam is sent to the email address you are using it does actually
    > get to the OzEmail mail server, which then bounces it. That is then
    > two email messages, the spam and the bounce.
    > By placing the spam-block in the email address, the domain will not
    > resolve, so it won't even get sent, thereby eliminating two emails
    > from the traffic. Two emails is bugger all, but when you take into
    > account all of the spam out there it will make a difference if
    > everybody does it.
    > Dave
    > =====
    > NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.
    > http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

Dave Proctor

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:13:24 +1000, "Jeff" <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Hi Dave
    >Thanks for the tip, i have changed it as per your suggestion.

No dramas - there is also the faint chance that a spam-blocked
username might actually exist - although I doubt that there would be a
hanjNOSPAM user. :D

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

Frank Slootweg

Dave Proctor <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:34:14 +1000, "Jeff" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > Jeff, completely off-topic, but you might want to change the spam
    > filter in your email address so that the spam-block is in the domain
    > name rater than user name.
    >
    > When spam is sent to the email address you are using it does actually
    > get to the OzEmail mail server, which then bounces it. That is then
    > two email messages, the spam and the bounce.
    >
    > By placing the spam-block in the email address, the domain will not
    > resolve, so it won't even get sent, thereby eliminating two emails
    > from the traffic. Two emails is bugger all, but when you take into
    > account all of the spam out there it will make a difference if
    > everybody does it.

Well, munging the host.domain part is also frowned upon? Why? Because
the munger does not own the domain and the munged address *could* be a
real domain (or host) name, i.e. it is not up to the munger to decide
that (in your example) "remove" is an unlikely to exist subdomain or
that "spambait" is an unlikely to exist hostname. Those decisions are
upto the *owner* of the domain, i.e. not 'you' (generic you).

How then *can* one munge and still be a good Netizen? By adding
".invalid" to the end of the munged address (see for example my "From:"
address). "invalid" is not just some word, but a *standardized* [1]
top-level domain (TLD) name which is *guaranteed* to never exist. Also
standards-aware software (like newsreaders) will not even try to send a
message to an ".invalid" address. So there is a *big* difference between
the pseudo (TL) domain ".invalid" and some dreamt-up pseudo (TL) domain
like ".humpty". The former is guaranteed to never exist. For the latter
that is just very likely.

So Jeff, I advise to change again to your *earlier* address, with
".invalid" at the end.

Note however that address-harvesters, i.e. the people who gather
addresses which spammers use, are aware of the "nospam" trick (and the
".invalid" standard), so you might want to come up with something more
clever/obtuse than "nospam".

I hope this helps.

[1] See RFC 2606 "Reserved Top Level DNS Names"
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt?number=2606>

Dave Proctor

On 27 Apr 2005 15:43:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg <[email protected]>
wrote:

    > How then *can* one munge and still be a good Netizen? By adding
    >".invalid" to the end of the munged address (see for example my "From:"
    >address). "invalid" is not just some word, but a *standardized* [1]
    >top-level domain (TLD) name which is *guaranteed* to never exist.

And once it is *guaranteed* to never exist, the spambots can take tis
into account and correct accordingly.

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

Dave Proctor

On 27 Apr 2005 15:43:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Note however that address-harvesters, i.e. the people who gather
    >addresses which spammers use, are aware of the "nospam" trick (and the
    >".invalid" standard), so you might want to come up with something more
    >clever/obtuse than "nospam".

Nothing wrong with the new address (apart from how his news reader
interprets it as far as replies to previous psosts go). Still a HUGE
amount of conventional wisdom to go with me rather than your advice,
Frank.

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

Frank Slootweg

Dave Proctor <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On 27 Apr 2005 15:43:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > How then *can* one munge and still be a good Netizen? By adding
    > >".invalid" to the end of the munged address (see for example my "From:"
    > >address). "invalid" is not just some word, but a *standardized* [1]
    > >top-level domain (TLD) name which is *guaranteed* to never exist.
    >
    > And once it is *guaranteed* to never exist, the spambots can take tis
    > into account and correct accordingly.

That is why, as I said in the part which you snipped, one has to be
clever/obtuse with the "nospam" (or in your case "spambait" and
"remove") part. I.e. it is not either-or, but and. I.e. you have to
munge in a clever/obtuse way *and* add ".invalid" at the end. The
clever/obtuse munge is *against* the address-harvesters/spammers. The
".invalid" part is *for* The Good Guys (tm), Good Netkeeping, etc.. I
hope it is clearer now.

Frank Slootweg

Dave Proctor <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On 27 Apr 2005 15:43:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Note however that address-harvesters, i.e. the people who gather
    > >addresses which spammers use, are aware of the "nospam" trick (and the
    > >".invalid" standard), so you might want to come up with something more
    > >clever/obtuse than "nospam".
    >
    > Nothing wrong with the new address (apart from how his news reader
    > interprets it as far as replies to previous psosts go). Still a HUGE
    > amount of conventional wisdom to go with me rather than your advice,
    > Frank.

Well, his new address, <name>@nospamozemail.com.au, abuses the com.au
domain. That domain is not his/yours/mine. Simple as that. You may not
*care* about this abuse, but that doesn't mean that is *isn't* abuse.

In case it wasn't clear what I meant: With <name>@nospamozemail.com.au,
whether without or without ".invalid" at the end, it is trivial for the
address-harvesters/spammers to remove the "nospam" (and ".invalid" if
present) and come up with the real address. I.e. "nospam" offers hardly
any protection, because it is too easy to 'guess'. Hence my remark about
using something more clever/obtuse.

As to "conventional wisdom" versus "your advice" (i.e. 'mine'): Please
be so kind as to explain *why* your "conventional wisdom" is better than
'my' advice c.q. what is wrong with 'my' advice. 'My' advice is the
advice of the News Admins of the world, of which I have been one for
over two decades.

Jeff

By coincidence i received an email fromOzemail yesterday informing that they
will soon be offering free anti-spam and email anti-virus protection to my
inbox.


"Frank Slootweg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Dave Proctor <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On 27 Apr 2005 15:43:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >> >Note however that address-harvesters, i.e. the people who gather
    >> >addresses which spammers use, are aware of the "nospam" trick (and the
    >> >".invalid" standard), so you might want to come up with something more
    >> >clever/obtuse than "nospam".
    >> Nothing wrong with the new address (apart from how his news reader
    >> interprets it as far as replies to previous psosts go). Still a HUGE
    >> amount of conventional wisdom to go with me rather than your advice,
    >> Frank.
    > Well, his new address, <name>@nospamozemail.com.au, abuses the com.au
    > domain. That domain is not his/yours/mine. Simple as that. You may not
    > *care* about this abuse, but that doesn't mean that is *isn't* abuse.
    > In case it wasn't clear what I meant: With <name>@nospamozemail.com.au,
    > whether without or without ".invalid" at the end, it is trivial for the
    > address-harvesters/spammers to remove the "nospam" (and ".invalid" if
    > present) and come up with the real address. I.e. "nospam" offers hardly
    > any protection, because it is too easy to 'guess'. Hence my remark about
    > using something more clever/obtuse.
    > As to "conventional wisdom" versus "your advice" (i.e. 'mine'): Please
    > be so kind as to explain *why* your "conventional wisdom" is better than
    > 'my' advice c.q. what is wrong with 'my' advice. 'My' advice is the
    > advice of the News Admins of the world, of which I have been one for
    > over two decades.