that point is/was not lost on me ... i just did not articulate. At Tuesday, 16 December 2003, ScruLoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ca> wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:42:07PM -0500, charlie derr wrote: >> Debian User wrote: > >> >maybe i missed something in a previous post... isn't it the purpose >> >to soecify hosts you are allowing to relay w/ the host_accept_relay >> >setting in exim.conf? this will allow you not to be an open relay >> >eventhough you have a dynamic IP address. >> > >> I think what you missed is that more and more places will not allow you >> to then deliver mail to them (because you're on a dynamic IP range that >> they've received spam from). > >I think you're missing the fact that it does not generally depend on >whether they've received spam from that IP range. >AFAIK, these places are blacklisting dynamic IPs as a general principle. > > Cheers! >-- >-------------------------------<<ScruLoose>>-------------------- ----------- >They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety >deserve neither liberty nor safety. >- Benjamin Franklin >--------------------------<<Please do not CC me>>--------------- ----------- > >Attached file >Save attachment >View attachment as text > Name: attachment.2 > Type: application/pgp-signature > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]