ok, i just gotta disagree on that i have no idea why i'm disagreeing other than the fact we just cant have total agreement in here ya know.
for what it matters to anyone, i really understand both stances on this, it just seems there could be a happy medium that we all could go with and deal with, i really would like to use rfci but just cant afford it the way it is. reality is the big ISP's DO need to be held accountable for things such as SPAM, such as at&t allowing azoogle to exist, if att would not look at that $ from azoogle and actually had something to lose it would make a diff, currently all they have to do is gain from azoogle and the likes, i just think rfci is not the answer to this type of situation. i understand your stance that whitelisting all the subdomains does not hold uunet accountable for their non-compliance yet i also tend to agree that terry cant force uunet to change anything and therefore suffers, it shouldnt force him to change the way he has things configured, which 'are' in compliance, by force i mean that rfci shouldnt give him only a choice such as changing providers. he's done everything within his power to get himself removed and i think that should be enough. don > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek J. Balling > >Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 3:42 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: [IMGate] Re: Recent Thread: "i just noticed" (UUNet/RFCI issue) > > > > > > > > > >On Saturday, December 14, 2002, at 06:33 PM, Smart Business Lists > >wrote: > >> Actually bottom line doesn't seem to matter too much to UUNET, BBN, > >> AOL, et al - the Internet is in a sad, sad state -- > > > >Sadly, this is something we can probably all agree on. > > > >D > > > > > >
