[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > We _offer_ what we offer. We do not have to say "we do not offer ..." and
> > list those things that we do not offer. We don't offer donuts and coffee
> > delivery in the morning, but we don't have to put that in the contract.
>
> Off course. But Don't u offer mail to your customers? How do u state it.
> We offer you an email account where you can receive mail?
> or
> We offer you an email account where you can receive almost all mail sent
> to you?
We offer services that are consistent with the efficient, secure, and cost
effective operation of our service. We reserve the right to update and modify
the services we offer. This offering can be superceded by a specific offering
in an individual contract signed between the provider and customer. Customers
who are affected by a change in our offering are eligible for termination of
service effective on the date the changes take place, or up to 60 days after
the changes take place if we fail to provide 60 or more days notice of the
changes and date, without penalty if a penalty would otherwise be applicable.
> > Then if your government, A.K.A., your PTT, decides to change what it is they offer,
> > and does so under the contractual rules they (the government) has established as
> > the way things are done, then I guess you will continue to deal with it.
>
> Yes it's called. No options.
Well, I'm not the PTT. If I were, and thus you were forced to use my service,
then I could understand your complaint (although in the capacity of the PTT,
perhaps my official duty would be to disregard your complaint).
There is even less I can do about your PTT than you can do about it. Well, I
suppose I could start a protest in front of your country's embassy in the US.
But I doubt if that would have any more effect than reducing my bank account
by the cost of airfare, hotel bill, sticks, cardboard, and some magic markers.
> > > AFAIK some people advocate, the acceptance of mail from dial up, and then
> > > delete it. Rejection _is_ fine by me, i can take some exceptions,
> > > deletions of ACK mail, is not an option.
> >
> > How is that not an option?
>
> I refuse to accept that as a reasonable policy.
>
> [forcing legitimate users to call you, cause u don't accept mail from
> them]
What if these "legitimate" users wanted to send mail to my customers using some
oddball protocol someone made up? The mail can be just as legitimate, but why
do I have to start putting up servers for every protocol someone wants to make?
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.
Likewise I don't offer the service of receiving mail that bypasses the normal
delivery mechanisms through the dialup's local mail server.
> > That may well be the case. But I am making it less expensive for my business,
> > and hence for my customers, by choosing to _not_ have to set up the facility to
> > manage the flood of incoming spam. To satisfy my customers who complain about
> > spam I need to take some kind of action. There are choices to that and I have
>
> Agreed. I just don't agree that the measuse u are advocatin is reasonable.
We agree to disagree. I suspect the disagreement is based on disagreeing about
how business costs and profits often dictate these decisions.
> > to make the choice that increases the profit of my business, which is generally
> > some balance between keeping/increasing the customer base (e.g. keep them happy)
> > and keeping costs down (e.g. not having to buy special complex packages that
> > require extra staff to maintain, or putting on extra tech support to handle the
> > complaint calls, etc). If I choose to conduct my business by blocking mail
> > that comes directly from a dialup port, then I have to answer to my customers
> > and my P/L statement.
> >
> > Simply inject your e-mail into the SMTP server of your ISP if you are doing so
> > from a dialup. Your ISP is offering SMTP service?
>
> Apart from the fact that i don't use an ISP, yes he does. Only he doesn't
> provide the reliability, speed (among other things) that i can provide
> myself.
You are unclear here.
Are you running your own SMTP server over a dialup to an ISP, bypassing their
SMTP server because yours runs better? Maybe this is because your ISP's SMTP
server is clogged with spam? Is static IP and reverse delegation not an option
to make your SMTP server look legitimate?
Are you running your own SMTP server somewhere else, like at work?
Are you running something that only appears to be an SMTP server, such as
"Spam Master 2000 Gold"?
--
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]
