on 12/24/08 11:12 PM, Bernie Cosell said:
This is wildly offtopic for this list and I, too, am going to stop
prolonging it,
If you want to continue this conversation, try the IETF/IRTF Anti-Spam
Research Group. John Levine has mentioned that everyone over there is
going through the e-postal
On 25 Dec 2008 at 12:41, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Again, assuming that traffic patterns stay the same, this is all very
> nice for AOL, which would have a substantial positive balance of
> payments. But it would suck rotten eggs for open source projects,
> whose primary interaction with the m
On 25 Dec 2008 at 10:29, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Bernie Cosell writes:
> > [same as with the USPS
>
> Aye, there's the rub. The USPS is, even today, a state(-protected)
> monopoly. Email is not, and cannot be, unless you make the whole
> Internet a state monopoly.
What I was suggesting
Alex writes:
> Well, Comcast just blocked port 25 at my house and required to use port 587
> for outgoing mail. I guess charging money per email is next?
No, why do you think that follows? Blocking port 25 simply means that
you can't spam without going through Comcast. If they thought that
c
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> Perhaps the payment-autentication system could be developed in the
> context of a distributed database resembling that used for DNS, or more
> like DNSSEC, perhaps.
I don't deny that technologically you could do this, but the question
remains: who would actually pay?
On Thu, 2008-12-25 at 10:29 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Including a national monopoly email provider, I guess? What I
> interpret Lindsay to be saying is that for Christmas cards you can
> treat the USPS as a well-behaved black box (in the systems analysis
> sense; it may or may not do the
Bernie Cosell writes:
> I'm not sure these are fatal-flaw problems
They're not.
> [same as with the USPS
Aye, there's the rub. The USPS is, even today, a state(-protected)
monopoly. Email is not, and cannot be, unless you make the whole
Internet a state monopoly.
> > ... Email has evolved
On 24 Dec 2008 at 11:11, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> Charging (someone) per email, while it's an attractive concept, seems to
> be kind of a technological mismatch. There are paradigms that can be
> associated with hard-copy paper mail that just don't apply to email.
> For instance, how do you deal
On Thu, 2008-12-25 at 00:06 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> So I don't think we even want to joke about financial penalties for
> spamming, because in the end it's applications like Mailman and this
> list itself that will end up as collateral damage in any such solution.
>
> > If you wanted
Denny Zulfikar wrote:
>
>I am new user in this list. I have question that confusing me,
>
>I setup mailman-2.1.11 by manual from source package.
>My system is a mailserver using postfix virtual. hostname of the server is
>"mail" with domain "domain.com".
>My question are:
>1. I had install the mail
Brad Knowles writes:
> on 12/23/08 2:14 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull said:
>
> > And the primary maintainer of a piece of software which AFAIK
> > continues to be a source of backscatter might want to be a little
> > careful about suggesting that vendors be billed
>
> We give the list owne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 24, 2008, at 2:33 AM, Brad Knowles wrote:
on 12/23/08 2:14 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull said:
And the primary maintainer of a piece of software which AFAIK
continues to be a source of backscatter might want to be a little
careful about suggestin
12 matches
Mail list logo
