-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Hector,
On 12 Apr 2008 at 10:05, Hector Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I guess there is also some selfishness here because as with most things, if > it doesn't happen to you, if you don't feel it, most people who careless > about it. I'll never forget what I suffered when using a dynamic IP address on a cable modem connection. Now that I've moved to a static IP address on a DSL provider which allows changing of Reverse DNS mappings (using CNAMEs - not optimal, but better than nothing!), and am suffering almost zero delivery issues, my promise has been never to depend on checks that would put to suffering any others who may be less fortunate and/or who try to use their connections to best advantage. I pay less than I used to when on that cable connection, but it required me to change connection technology to DSL of sufficiently reliable class (business) and telecoms provider. The RDNS check is basically pointless without the paranoia (RDNS<->A) check, which generates too many false positives to be useful. The Dynamic IP check is punishing people with guts and increasing the class divide between consumers and businesses needlessly. As a blind person, I find that the other thing that doesn't bother the majority of people that does bother me is graphical CAPTCHAs. Most people find them a nuisance; I find them a positive frustration. Given that these too are almost completely pointless, I won't inflict them upon others. Cheers, Sabahattin - -- Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail<at>sabahattin<dash>gucukoglu<dot>com> Address harvesters, snag this: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +44 20 88008915 Mobile: +44 7986 053399 http://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8 Comment: QDPGP - http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBSAFDJiNEOmEWtR2TEQJefQCeNSfGKgEwokN97lc+sX6OL3nmmW4AnRh1 Ieu0QOVf2UF1K5IYLbnBf1ch =W2ay -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
