On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:49:17AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What mechanism do you propose that people on dynamic IP's use to identify
> their mails as non-spam while still making direct SMTP connections to the
> MX host of the destination domain?
None, it is not necessary.
Hamish
--
Ham
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:42:21AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Furthermore, that any issue is unspecified in an RFC does not mean that the
> RFC's already address all issues that need to be addressed.
Yes, exactly. Therefore ommission of any comment about dialup users
making direct SMTP conne
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:58:18PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>>
>> The analogy is flawed. Solutions have been offered several
>> times owner for DUL-listed or potentially DUL-listed users.
>> All of which should not be too difficult to set up for
>>
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:58:18PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The problem with DUL is that they don't care if the people
> > blocked ever sent any spam. The have the wrong color ski^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
> > type of con
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:09:41PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:00:52AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > You appeal to authority, call for bandwagon jumping, and rely upon
> > anecdotal accounts, but have yet to point to an RFC that forbids or
> > discourages the esta
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:01:22PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> There are apparently a number of ISPs that do well in providing an IP
> pipe, but suck big rocks when it comes to administering a mail server.
>
> This number will certainly grow as more and more infrastructure
> (phone, cable, el
First I'd like to know what "dialup" includes means for you.
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It does seem that some people do find it beneficial to send mail
> direct from their dialups (static or dynamic). I don't understand why
> they think this is a good idea,
There are apparently
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The problem with DUL is that they don't care if the people
> blocked ever sent any spam. The have the wrong color ski^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
> type of connection, and must be the enemy.
The analogy is flawed. Solutions have b
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:00:52AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You appeal to authority, call for bandwagon jumping, and rely upon
> anecdotal accounts, but have yet to point to an RFC that forbids or
> discourages the establishment of outbound SMTP connections from dialup
> machines, whether t
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It's all going to end in heat death anyway.
Of course, so we might as well turn off the computers right now.
Cheers
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
I don't like getting spam. I dislike the fact that I am
inconvenienced. I have not yet decided to give in, though. And, in
my opinion, bouncing mail from people innocent of sending spam is
giving in to spammers.
I ifnd this phenomena remniscent of may people in the trhoes
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:56:05AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> That mail direct from dynamic dialups is a problem is recognised
> throughout the community. Not only did Paul Vixie, the author of
> BIND, and other leading lights of the Internet, decide to host,
> support, etc, the DUL. Many ISPs p
12 matches
Mail list logo
