On 2012-10-20, The Stovebolt Geek <g...@stovebolt.com> wrote: > > But then I've never been one to rigidly demand that everyone else > comply with my concept of what is "right".
Then this means you are not using a DNSBL as a block list - which indeed promotes a live and let live approach. It is precisely those who run a DNSBL as a block list who are demanding (with force, in fact) that everyone else adopt their extra-RFC concept of "right" -- and if they do not comply with this extra-RFC practice, then their mail will be disrupted. It's a great way for large corporporate conglomerates to control others. (by "extra-RFC", I mean creating more rigidity that's not entailed by the RFC) > You might consider doing that. Doing what? If I take into account your backwards idea of who is imposing a practice on who, then here you mean to receive mail in a way that imposes the same rigid, self-righteous, over-zealous policy on all senders, and send mail in a way that endorses and supports the problem.
