> > > Why we are having this discussion? probably because some people, like to
> > > categorize people who send mail through dial up as spammers.
> >
> > It's not a case of categorizing. The problem is that those who do send
> > mail directly from a dialup cannot be _distinguished_ from a spammer.
>
> Then why should they be automatically labelled as spammers? Also, people
> who send mail through relays cannot be distinguished from spammers also.
Read what I said. That is the answer to your question. What you need
to do is make your network connection somehow look different than what a
spammer appears to look like. If you are standing in a crowd of spammers,
and you wear the same clothes that all the spammers wear, and you have
the same hat as all the spammers have, and you grin the same way that all
the spammers grin, then how are we to know you are not a spammer? You need
to make yourself distinguishable from spammers. That's your responsibility
regardless whether your ISP or government makes it hard for you.
> > It's not an issue of whether or not it is a dialup. It is an issue of
> > whether or not it is an address with a generic or anonymous name associated
> > with it, which dialup ports generally have. By getting a fixed address
>
> Can u define anonymous?? (something that doesn't isn't reversed resolved?)
Yes I can. If there is no reverse name, that is anonymous. Also, if there
is a reverse name, but it has a generic pattern with number sequences and
does not identify any particular domain other than the ISP, then that, too,
is anonymous.
> > with a real name (even a 3rd level domain name is fine) and real MX records,
> > then it won't look like what we have been referring to as "dialup".
>
> I don't understand also,why they should have MX records also.
If you register a domain and have the network address number reverse resolve
to that name, then it will not appear anonymous and will distinguish you
from the spammers. If a spammer does the same thing, you will still be
distinguished from the spammer because the domain names are different.
If a spammer gets a domain name so as to not appear anonymous, and then
spams me, I can block just that domain name (and not yours).
MX records are another level of showing a degree of authenticity. It is
not perfect, but it raises the probability (at least for the time being)
that the host name is not the source of a spammer.
> > And if it takes political changes in your country to allow that to happen,
> > then that's what you'll need to do. My guess, however, is that perhaps it
> > can be expedited by contacting the right people and simply getting some
> > technical competency in place at the levels where management decisions are
> > being made.
>
> Isn't that a bit little lyrical?
I live in Texas. It's not practical for me to go there to persuade them to
correct their operational procedures to allow you the means to make yourself
appear on the internet as not a spammer. You live there, speak the language,
know the culture, and have some idea how business and government functions
there. You are in a much better position to deal with it than I am.
> > In the mean time, the rest of the world is not going to wait for you to
> > catch up.
>
> As long as they are reasonable, i don't see any reason to. :-)
The world is moving along with the intent to leave spammers behind. If you
don't catch up, you'll be behind there with the spammers. It's not where I
would want to be.
--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
