On Monday 08 September 2008 04:47:49 Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:33:14 -0700, David Southwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Monday 08 September 2008 03:57:11 you wrote: > >>On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 02:47:47 -0700, David Southwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Could anyone tell me what entry I should make in postfix configuration > >>> files to bounce mails directed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] that emanate from a > >>> source outside my local network. > >>> > >>> Sorry to ask the question here but postfix users mailing list is > >>> currently rejecting mails from servers on a dynamic ip address - so I > >>> cannot get through to ask a question there. > >> > >> I don't think that restriction is going to be lifted any time soon. So > >> why are you not using your ISP to relay emails, using its mail gateway > >> (which should have a static IP address)? > > > > I think the restriction is OTT especially in the light of civil > > liberties issues. > > > > I do not like the fact that a number of governments (including most > > european ones) now have the right to access all emails that pass > > through an ISP's server. They do not have the right to access private > > server systems unless they have a warrant. > > 'civil liberties' are only meaningful in the context of a specific > 'civilization'. Welcome to the civilization that allows spammers to use > dynamic IP addresses to disrupt, annoy, cause harm, commit commercial > and all other sorts of fraud. > > One may easily argue that the 'civil laws' that forbid stealing from > other people are 'limiting the freedom we have to use the potentially > boundless resources available all over the place'. I don't think anyone > would consider the argument in favor of stealing as very sound. > > The same can be said of the IP address space. One can argue for days, > nay for _weeks_ or even years, that requiring a static IP address to be > able to post to a 'common resource' --like the mailing list-- is a limit > to the freedom of everyone. I'm not very convinced this limit is as bad > as you are trying to describe, though. > > Giorgos In yesterday's world anyone could send a physical letter to any address anywhere in the world. I get spam letters through the letter box it is up to me to chuck them in the bin. Why should the internet be different especially when the restrictions on fixed IPs are brought about soleley for commercial interests.
If the same protocol was applied to physical mail then we would not have been allowed to send letters unless we had a big building to send it from and all letters would have had to have had a "big building" sending address. No banning on the grounds of address type is discriminations. Yes bad because there has been specific abuse and ban until the abuse is cleaned up.. but do not ban on type of address!! It would be like saying only the rich could send letters!! David _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"