[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 8 February 1999 at 16:11:54
+0100
> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 7 February 1999 at
>20:35:40 +0100
> > > 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.
> >
> > Right, and people are blocking systems known to be open relays, too.
> > See the pattern?
>
> I do, and i tend to agree with them. But they block it _after_ they are
> spammed. But what i've seen, is people advocating that dial up's be
> blocked, before then even have been used for spamming. After they have
> been used, fine with me, block them, not before.
And people are saying they block dialup blocks after they've been
spammed from them, too. And on the other side, ORBS is listing open
relays, not just ones that have been verified as spam sources. Right
or wrong, I think the actions are consistent throughout.
--
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
