On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 00:05:50 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:07:30 -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
It can be built without choke points. ISPs could form trust
relationships with each other and bypass the central mail
How does this sound for a new mail distribution network.
Customers can only send mail through their direct provider
ISPs can only send mail to their customers and their upstream provider.
Sounds like NIMTP. See Google for more...
--Michael Dillon
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 02:15:49PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
SMTP_AUTH authenticated users to a mail server. What I'm talking
Postfix will let you do SMTP authentication from one mail server
to another, and to address the person who said a school was brute-
forced, this is from server to
Quoting Vivien M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You seem to be misunderstanding the issue. Let's say you work at
someplace.edu. You want to send mail from home. With the SPF-type schemes
being discussed, your mail MUST come from someplace.edu's server.
If someplace.edu won't set up an SMTP AUTH
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:08:52PM -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
If this solution had been implemented 5 years ago instead of the no third
party relays system now in place, I wouldn't be opposed to it... But the
issue is that the use the local SMTP server to send model is the main one
deployed in
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:04:42PM -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
You seem to be misunderstanding the issue. Let's say you work at
someplace.edu. You want to send mail from home. With the SPF-type schemes
being discussed, your mail MUST come from someplace.edu's server.
If someplace.edu won't set
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Omachonu Ogali wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:08:52PM -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
If this solution had been implemented 5 years ago instead of the no third
party relays system now in place, I wouldn't be opposed to it... But the
issue is that the use the local SMTP
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 12:21:02PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
It really doesnt make any difference, if you change the rules by implementing
auth etc the spammers will just adopt and it follows that the more thorough you
are in the anti-spam measures, the more drastic the spammers will
In the immortal words of Matthew Crocker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Given the way that most ISP shared resource machines (including but
hardly limited to DNS caching/recursive
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:13:31 -0500, John Palmer wrote:
I connect with my laptop from 3 or 4 locations to drop off mail to
my servers. I cannot use their mail servers from other locations other
than when I am connected to them. I have about 2 dozen e-mail
accounts defined in outlook express and
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:07:30 -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
It can be built without choke points. ISPs could form trust
relationships with each other and bypass the central mail relay. AOL
for example could require ISPs to meet certain
Susan,
It just ticks me off because I know there are a lot of
others who will be in this boat.
Indeed, there are. I have numerous small customers that have either a
single static IP or a /29 block from {Pacific Bell | your ISP} and that
occasionally are blocked because either the block is
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:29:42PM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
However, trying to be pragmatic, this is a situation that will
eventually solve by itself: Since having {Pacific Bell | your ISP} do
anything about it is not an option, when these customers are trying to
email to {AOL | some ISP} and
Yo All!
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Michel Py wrote:
Indeed, there are. I have numerous small customers that have either a
single static IP or a /29 block from {Pacific Bell | your ISP} and that
occasionally are blocked because either the block is marked as
residential or the reverse lookup
Gary E. Miller wrote:
Maybe if PacBell (and others) actually disciplined their more out of
control DSL customers then other ISPs would not feel the need to do it
for them.
It doesn't matter. A large percentage of open proxies are on dynamic
DSL. Since a lot of ISPs will not handle proxy reports
Michel Py writes
eating some email from no reason, having limits in attachment
size, you can't have a mailing list that way, etc.
Roland Perry wrote:
Isn't this where we started? One ISP I know decided to limit
customers to 200 outgoing recipients a day. Great for stopping
spammers, great
Michel Py wrote:
If ISPs don't want people to run SMTP servers on their DSL line they
should provide a top-notch smarthost, which most don't.
The one's that don't provide a top-notch smarthost usually don't handle
abuse complaints either. Just what do they do for their customers? I'm
curious.
Michel Py wrote:
If ISPs don't want people to run SMTP servers on their DSL
line they should provide a top-notch smarthost, which most
don't.
Jack Bates wrote:
The one's that don't provide a top-notch smarthost usually
don't handle abuse complaints either.
True. sigh.
Just what do
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:06:10AM -0400, Roland Perry wrote:
Here's another tale of undeliverable email. It seems that [at least] one
of those organisations you mention assigns IP addresses for its ADSL
customers from the same blocks as dial-up. Which means that
organisations using MAPS-DUL
At 08:37 AM 8/29/2003, Jack Bates wrote:
Michel Py wrote:
If ISPs don't want people to run SMTP servers on their DSL line
theyshould provide a top-notch smarthost, which most don't.
The one's that don't provide a top-notch smarthost usually don't handle
abuse complaints either. Just what do
On donderdag, aug 28, 2003, at 20:10 Europe/Amsterdam, Paul Vixie wrote:
Play with DNS MX records like QMTP does.
here are at least two problems with this approach. one is that an mx
priority is a 16 bit unsigned integer, not like your example. another
is that spammers do not follow the MX
But how about this: in addition to MX hosts, every domain also has one or
more MO (mail originator) hosts. Mail servers then get to check the address
of the SMTP server they're talking to against the DNS records for the
domain in the sender's address. Then customers who use an email address
trusted-mx.crocker.com uses DNSRTTL (Real Time Trust List) to only
accept connections from IPs it trusts.
Hate to break up your envisionary experiences and insight into
reinventing the wheel, but what happened to consideration of
SMTP authentication?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Omachonu Ogali wrote:
|trusted-mx.crocker.com uses DNSRTTL (Real Time Trust List) to only
|accept connections from IPs it trusts.
|
|
| Hate to break up your envisionary experiences and insight into
| reinventing the wheel, but what happened to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But how about this: in addition to MX hosts, every domain also has one
or more MO (mail originator) hosts. Mail servers then get to check the
address of the SMTP server they're talking to against the DNS records
for
But how about this: in addition to MX hosts, every domain also has one
or more MO (mail originator) hosts. Mail servers then get to check the
address of the SMTP server they're talking to against the DNS records
for the domain in the sender's address. Then customers who use an email
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Simon Lockhart wrote:
I travel around. I read my email by POP3/IMAP, I use local ISP's SMTP
server for outgoing - surely that means I can't use my own domain for
email?
Time to switch to SMTP AUTH and use the same relay always.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL
[Note: I posted something else on this topic, but it doesn't appear to have
made it through yet...]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: August 29, 2003 3:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fun new policy
I travel around. I read my email by POP3/IMAP, I use local ISP's SMTP
server for outgoing - surely that means I can't use my own domain for
email?
Your ISP should support SMTP_AUTH with TLS for you. You would continue
to use their mail servers no matter where you are or how you are
connected
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Vivien M. wrote:
And what do you do if you're not the admin for the relay? And what about if
the admin tells you This is why we installed some webmail package. Use that
instead.?
You switch service provider or give them a whack with the cluebat.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 29, 2003 3:44 PM
To: Vivien M.
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Fun new policy at AOL
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Vivien M. wrote:
And what do you do if you're not the admin for the relay
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
You switch service provider or give them a whack with the cluebat.
Some providers don't support auth do to the insecure passwords their
users have. Having your server opened up to relay spam because your user
had a bad password is not a good prospect.
-Jack
At 12:32 PM 8/29/2003, Vivien M. wrote:
Time to switch to SMTP AUTH and use the same relay always.
And what do you do if you're not the admin for the relay? And what about if
the admin tells you This is why we installed some webmail package. Use that
instead.?
Either the webmail solution meets
You switch service provider or give them a whack with the cluebat.
And if the service provider is your employer/educational
institution? You
quit your job? Drop out of school? Swallow your pride and suffer with
webmail?
Spend $19.95 getting a dialup account for an ISP with a clue and use
their
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matthew Crocker
Sent: August 29, 2003 3:58 PM
To: Vivien M.
Cc: 'Mikael Abrahamsson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL
You switch service provider or give them a whack
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of JC Dill
Sent: August 29, 2003 3:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Fun new policy at AOL
At 12:32 PM 8/29/2003, Vivien M. wrote:
Time to switch to SMTP AUTH and use the same relay
At 12:45 PM 8/29/2003, Vivien M. wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Vivien M. wrote:
And what do you do if you're not the admin for the relay? And what
about if the admin tells you This is why we installed some webmail
package. Use that instead.?
You switch service provider or give them a
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:47:50 CDT, Jack Bates said:
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
You switch service provider or give them a whack with the cluebat.
Some providers don't support auth do to the insecure passwords their
users have. Having your server opened up to relay spam because your
You seem to be misunderstanding the issue. Let's say you work at
someplace.edu. You want to send mail from home. With the SPF-type
schemes
being discussed, your mail MUST come from someplace.edu's server.
If someplace.edu won't set up an SMTP AUTH relay, what do you do? Your
dialup account will
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 29, 2003 4:16 PM
To: Vivien M.
Cc: 'Mikael Abrahamsson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL
Port forward 127.0.0.1:25 through to someplace.edu:25 using SSH. Or
VPN
Is this being added to a bind 9 rewrite? If so, when can we
expected it to be released? :)
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:47:58PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
But how about this: in addition to MX hosts, every domain also has one or
more MO (mail originator) hosts. Mail servers then get to check
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Omachonu
Ogali [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
In which case, the telecommuters should use their organization's
mail servers with SMTP authentication (yes, authentication, not
pop-before-smtp).
I'm a telecommuter, I'm also a freelance, so my organisation is me. I
like the
is hosted in a controlled environment (ie power, AC, network) et
cetera, the benefits are endless.
Thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: Roland Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 4:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL
In article
JC Dill wrote:
Either the webmail solution meets your needs, or you need to obtain
service from a company that offers a solution that meets your needs.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Or people implement a protocol that doesn't break existing uses of the
system (let's not forget the issues
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Drew Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Then why not just pay a Virtual Mail hosting company to host a mail server
for you via Imail or one of the other virtual email service packages out
there. It is very inexpensive most of the time. That way you have the
flexibility
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the provider allows the user to pick an insecure password, and then
complains that they can't support a security measure because of their poor
policy choices/enforcement?
You have an easy way to change password enforcement of an existing user
base? Dealing with people
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:19:28 CDT, Jack Bates said:
I wouldn't recommend a policy change like that for any user base over
10,000.
So you're saying that because you've got too many users with dumb passwords,
that's justification for not fixing it? ;)
/Valdis (and yes, we're in the middle of a
Sometime mid last week, one of my clients--a state chapter of a national
association--became unable to send to all of their AOL members. Assuming
it was simply that AOLs servers were inundated with infected emails, I
gave it some time. The errors were simply delay and not delivered in
time
At 02:34 AM 8/28/2003 -0500, Susan Zeigler wrote:
WTF. This IP is NOT dynamic. The client has had it for about two years.
What is the IP address they are rejecting ?
Unless AOL is downloading the
entire routing pools from all ISPs on a daily basis, how do they know
which IPs are dynamic and
I just looked on their website to file a complaint and ask how they
determined what was dynamic and what was static and couldn't find a
contact email address. I did find the following statement:
AOL's mail servers will not accept connections from systems that use
dynamically assigned IP
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:10 (UTC)
Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Whoa.. thats crazy. Obviously its an effort to stop relay forwarding
| from cable modem and DSL customers but there are *lots* of legitimate
| smtp servers sitting on customer sites on dynamic addresses.
And at one
Funny, I didn't think this was 'aol-mail-policy-list'.
This isn't new, crazy, nor out of step with generally accepted
practices. They [and many others] have been doing it for a
while. A dynamic block is generally listed as such in a service
provider's reverse DNS and also often in a
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I just looked on their website to file a complaint and ask how they
determined what was dynamic and what was static and couldn't find a
contact email address. I did find the following statement:
AOL's mail servers will not accept connections
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joe Provo nanog-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
AOL's specific definition is point 12 on their
postmaster FAQ (http://postmaster.info.aol.com/faq.html).
That's their definition of Residential IP, not Dynamic IP.
if you have a server on
a residential connection, check
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
We can thank the usual suspects - Cogent, Qwest, ATT, Comcast - and in
Europe: BT, NTL and possibly the world-abuse-leader, Deutsche Telekom
(who run dtag.de and t-dialin.net) for this being the situation.
Here's another tale of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
We can thank the usual suspects - Cogent, Qwest, ATT, Comcast - and
in
Europe: BT, NTL and possibly the world-abuse-leader, Deutsche Telekom
(who run dtag.de and t-dialin.net) for this being the situation.
Here's another tale of
Sometime mid last week, one of my clients--a state chapter of
a national
association--became unable to send to all of their AOL
members. Assuming
it was simply that AOLs servers were inundated with infected emails, I
gave it some time. The errors were simply delay and not
delivered in
On Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:18 PM, Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
At least here in DE there are resellers of DTAG which offer DSL connections
without any SMTP
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Also depends on how much clue said ISP has. I have a DSL-like connection
at home from a large LEC/ISP, but half the time their
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Nipper, Arnold wrote:
On Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:18 PM, Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
At least here in DE there are resellers of
SMTP DNS should be run through the servers provided by the ISP for
the exact purpose. There is no valid reason for a dialup customer to
^ OH YES THERE IS
(at least to a different resolver other than yours)
go direct to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew
Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs mail
server as a smart host for outbound mail? We block outbound port 25
connections
on our dialup and DSL pool.
[snip]
there is no reason why a
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
applying that standard just how large do you have to get before
you graduate to running your own smtp
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Roland Perry wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Stephen
J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
BT in the UK who as the incumbent are the only
provider of things like unmetered dialup..
I have a 19.99 a month unmetered dialup from Freeserve (based on
FRIACO). There
Matthew Crocker wrote:
SMTP DNS should be run through the servers provided by the ISP for
the exact purpose. There is no valid reason for a dialup customer to
go direct to root-servers.net and there is no reason why a dialup user
should be sending mail directly to AOL, or any mail server for
-On Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:18 PM, Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-wrote:
-
- Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
- mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
-
-At least here in DE there are resellers of DTAG which offer DSL connections
-without
- Original Message -
From: David Lesher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:22
Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services
On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 11:07 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
applying that standard just how large do you have to get before
you
On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 11:31 AM, Petri Helenius wrote:
Matthew Crocker wrote:
SMTP DNS should be run through the servers provided by the ISP for
the exact purpose. There is no valid reason for a dialup customer to
go direct to root-servers.net and there is no reason why a dialup
This brings up a more general point about the dangers of blocking
everything under the sun. When you limit yourself to just a few
chokepoints, its easier for those who would stifle communications
to shut things down.
This is a very dangerous path to take. Not that we shouldn't consider
some sort
Matthew Crocker wrote:
Technically no, There is no reason for a customer to have direct
access to the net so long as the ISP can provide appropriate proxies
for the services required.
It gets complex, it gets hard to manage but it can be done. There is
a stigma against proxing because of the
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:00:29 EDT, Matthew Crocker said:
How does this sound for a new mail distribution network.
Only a few problem here:
1) Bootstrapping it - as long as you need to accept legacy SMTP because
less than 90% of the mail is being done the new way, you have a hard sell
in getting
On 28 Aug 2003 16:07 UTC Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| AOL for example could require ISPs to meet certain criteria before
| they are allowed direct connections. ISPs would need to contact AOL,
| provide valid contact into and accept some sort of AUP (I shall not
| spam AOL...) and
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:04:09PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
Technically no, There is no reason for a customer to have direct
access to the net so long as the ISP can provide appropriate proxies
for the services required.
It gets complex, it gets hard to manage but it can be done.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:18:45AM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? We block outbound port
For some, sure. Maybe even most. That doesn't mean all. Are you a
fairly small,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew
Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
ISPs would need to contact AOL, provide valid contact into and accept some sort
of AUP (I shall not spam AOL...) and then be allowed to connect from their IPs.
AOL could kick that mail server off later if they determine
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew
Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Everything is logged
I have some policemen friends who will immediately add you to their Xmas
card list!
--
Roland Perry
Matthew Crocker wrote:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP
use the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using their mail
servers than when havong your own, not to mention theirs eating some
email from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Demon announcement was interesting to me as a subscriber.
Historically Demon allocated static IP addresses to (nearly) all dial up
users.
For many businesses this was a cheap and effective way to have their own
email servers running. For those
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using their mail
servers than when havong your own, not to mention theirs eating some
email from no reason, having limits in attachment size, you can't have a
mailing list
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]
py.sacramento.ca.us, Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
eating some
email from no reason, having limits in attachment size, you can't have a
mailing list that way, etc.
Isn't this where we started? One ISP I know decided to limit customers
to 200 outgoing recipients
Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Technically no, There is no reason for a customer to have direct
access to the net so long as the ISP can provide appropriate proxies
for the services required.
Good idea. I'll start working on the SSH proxy tomorrow.
-Matt
--Johnny
Of
David Lesher
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:22 AM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using their
mail servers than when havong your own, not to mention
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Shouldn't. There are privacy implications of having mail to be recorded
(even temporarily) at someone's disk drive.
--vadim
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Shouldn't. There are privacy implications of having mail to be recorded
(even temporarily) at someone's disk drive.
If your ISP violates your privacy or has a privacy policy you
Play with DNS MX records like QMTP does.
Something like
crocker.com. MX 65000 trusted-mx.crocker.com.
MX 66000 untrusted-mx.crocker.com.
there are at least two problems with this approach. one is that an mx
priority is a 16 bit unsigned integer, not like your
: Fun new policy at AOL
Matthew Crocker wrote:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP
use the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using their mail
servers than when havong your own, not to mention theirs
I think the inherent mantra and wise philosophy that gets tossed out the
window by AOL in this policy change is be strict in what you send, and
liberal in what you accept.
that policy was wiser when everyone who could get an internet connection
saw the merits of it. in an assymetric warfare
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote:
If your ISP violates your privacy or has a privacy policy you don't
like, find another one.
How do I know that?
As a hobby, I'm running a community site for an often misunderstood
sexual/lifestyle minority. Most of patrons would be very unhappy
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew
Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
If your ISP ... does a bad thing ... find another one.
Great in theory, but the market is imperfect. Even if money (and the
loss you'd incur from terminating your current ISP early) isn't the main
issue. Many countries, even
Matthew Crocker wrote:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use
the ISPs
mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Look carefully at that question and find the logic error.
...
In case you missed it, the customer purchased 'IP' service, not 'ISP mail
That's why we must encourage all ISPSs to be good guys, because we don't
want Government Regulators setting standards in these areas, do we?
if recent activity in the VoIP market is any indication, then we here
won't have much input as to when and how the ISP market gets regulated.
--
Paul
At 12:53 PM 8/28/2003, Tony Hain wrote:
Matthew Crocker wrote:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use
the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Look carefully at that question and find the logic error.
...
In case you missed it, the customer purchased
Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 02:34 AM 8/28/2003 -0500, Susan Zeigler wrote:
WTF. This IP is NOT dynamic. The client has had it for about two years.
What is the IP address they are rejecting ?
Unless AOL is downloading the
entire routing pools from all ISPs on a daily basis, how do they
]
http://www.kesslerconsulting.com
Phone: 260-625-3273
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Susan Zeigler
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fun new policy at AOL
Sometime mid last week, one of my clients
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Shouldn't. There are privacy implications of having mail to be recorded
(even temporarily) at someone's disk drive.
At 03:48 PM 28/08/2003 -0500, Susan Zeigler wrote:
Unless AOL is downloading the
entire routing pools from all ISPs on a daily basis, how do they know
which IPs are dynamic and which are static;)
What would BGP tables tell you about internal routing and DNS ?
It's 216.161.123.79
If they
Bob Bradlee wrote:
Road-Runner pulled the same stunt with a chain of radio stations
I have as clients. We went ON-AIR with a NEWS story, and
recomended that everyone effected should call Roadrunner
or AOL. AOL contacted me, verified the problem, and had my
IP's whitelisted in a matter of
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:07:30 -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
It can be built without choke points. ISPs could form trust
relationships with each other and bypass the central mail relay. AOL
for example could require ISPs to meet certain criteria before they are
allowed direct connections.
99 matches
Mail list logo
