On 17-Jan-99 16:24:16, Russell Nelson wrote something about "RE: Three solutions for
spam". I just couldn't help replying to it, thus:
> Stefaan A Eeckels writes:
> > I'm not a spammer. I've got my machine on a dial-up using
> > a dynamic IP address. This anti-SPAM measure forces me to
> > go through a smarthost, which (with qmail) gives no real
> > advantages, and reduces the control I have over the delivery
> > process. I find such a blanket rule offensive.
> I find spam offensive. All other forms of spam control exact a price;
> why do you expect this one to be free? If it comes down to it,
> Stefaan, I'll let you relay off my host.
Most other anti-spam measures have a technical foundation. Invalid domain,
header field syntax error, no or incorrect reverse DNS, etc. Blocking dialups
doesn't. IMHO, it comes dangerously close to racism.
Regards,
/������������������������������T�����������������������������������������\
| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Registered Phase5 developer | WWW: http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c948374/ |
| A4000, 775 kkeys/s (RC5-64) | "ThrustMe" on XPilot and EFnet IRC |
| Never underestimate the bandwidth of a CD-ROM flying through the lab. |
