On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > 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.
That's not the problem here. The problem here, is that i have clothes
that bear _some_ resemblances to _some_ spammers, and since you are too
distant to see it clearly, you automatically tell i'm a spammer. You shoot
first, than you check if the suspect was guilty.
> > > 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
patterns lile what? Like room-12-2.* ?? or lab12-123 ?
> does not identify any particular domain other than the ISP, then that, too,
> is anonymous.
??? domains like companyA.domain are not acceptable?
> > > 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.
I asked about MX records. Not domain names,
> 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.
A lot of legitimate hosts don't have MX records.
> > > 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,
I don't appear to be a spammer, i do appear to be a spammer to _some_
people. That's what we are arguing, the criteria those people apply to
identify a spammer.
> > > 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.
It hasn't been a problem so far.
--
Tiago Pascoal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX : +351-1-7273394
Politicamente incorrecto, e membro (nao muito) proeminente da geracao rasca.
