On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I do _not_ support "sending mail" by means of an ssh session that invokes the
> > > program to inject mail. Yet such a method could indeed function, and thus make
> > > those who want to use it "legitimate". So I'll decide to not offer that service
> > > (of receiving mail from those who want to send it by ssh) unless I come to see
> > > a business case for offering it.
> >
> > I think this has nothing to do with our discussing matter.
>
> It has everything to do with it. The issue is whether an ISP should be required
> to specifically handle things that are unusual. You might not think your way is
> unusual, but I do.
I don't see, why u are saying that a totally reasonable (doesn't violate
anything) it unsual.
> > > Likewise I don't offer the service of receiving mail that bypasses the normal
> > > delivery mechanisms through the dialup's local mail server.
> >
> > Normal according to what? An RFC? Or to you?
>
> Normal as in most common. It happens to be RFC'd, but that's not my basis. If
> 99% of the market wants to use SSH instead of SMTP, I'd go with that. That's the
> way business works.
is 99% of the market demaning that mail from dial-ups is to be disallowed?
:-)
> > > Are you running your own SMTP server over a dialup to an ISP, bypassing their
> >
> > Yes.
>
> The ISP is utl.pt?
Nope. ist.utl.pt (check www.ist.utl.pt). And not they are not an ISP. They
are a university, i use this service because i need fast access to local
machines, and yes they also happen to provide internet access.
> > > SMTP server because yours runs better? Maybe this is because your ISP's SMTP
> >
> > Yes mine runs better. Because:
> >
> > 1- It runs qmail.
> > 2- the queue only has my own messages, i don't share it with someone else,
> > thus i don't have have to share delivery time with someone else (and
> > believe it, i would have to share it with a lot of people)
> > 3- The smtp relay machine is sometimes overloaded (not to mention down)
> > It handles SMTP, HTTP,shell accounts, pop and who knows what else.
> > 4- I don't trust the admins (it's bad enough, the messages i lose due to
> > bouncing cause of misconfigurations and other 'things')
> > 5- I not exactly when the mail has arrived, if i use the relay i can only
> > hope it has arrived.
>
> I can understand why you want to do what you do. I would want to do so if I were
> in your place, as well. But I also realize others have no obligation to accept
> it like that, since it is not the usual way things are done.
>
> You really really really really really really need to get a better ISP. And "get"
> may be anything from forcing the issue in your government politics to showing to
> your news media of the PTT incompetence.
Send me your address, and i will send u my bills. :-)
> If things are so closed and tight in your country, how is it that you are sure that
> running an SMTP server is even legal and that they just haven't bother to block you,
> yet (perhaps due to incompetence)?
> Another option you might have is to rent a dedicated or colocated server in another
> country and tunnel in. Or I might even consider leasing tunnels into mine. Your
> PTT doesn't block tunnels do they? The vppp program can "tunnel" on any TCP port,
> so it would be pretty hard for them to block it, anyway.
should i go a great extent of trouble (not to mean expenses) to deliver
mail to _some_ people,which find my ways of delivering mail inadequate?
> > > server is clogged with spam? Is static IP and reverse delegation not an option
> > > to make your SMTP server look legitimate?
> >
> > Why isn't my server legitimate?
>
> The exact rule to determine that is not well established. But one way to possibly
> do so is if your server has an MX record. And to be sure your server name is not
> forged, your IP address would need a PTR that names your server, and your A record(s)
Well the only thing that my address doesn't comply, is the MX record, and
i see no need for it either.
> So how do you receive your mail? Does it really come to your server?
Nope. I never said i received mail directly. I only said it _sent_ it
directly.
> > starting delivery 1161: msg 25817 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > delivery 1161: success:
> >
>206.97.151.5_accepted_message../Remote_host_said:_250_GAA21302_Message_accepted_for_delivery/
> >
> > It seems your server hasn't any problems with mine.
>
> Because I have not implemented anything to actually block it. I don't even
> have qmail on this server (it's going on another project). Just because I do
> not block something does not mean I offer it. If the costs of not blocking
> it exceed the costs of blocking it, then I will block it. If the profits of
> offering it exceed the loss of not offering it, I will offer it.
Ok, and if you refuse mail from me, i will have to choices, find an
alternative of delivering mail to you, or stop sending mail to you.
That rules applies to anyone who refuses mail from dial up.
--
Tiago Pascoal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX : +351-1-7273394
Politicamente incorrecto, e membro (nao muito) proeminente da geracao rasca.
