I've just sent another, long, message about mail acceptance,
blacklisting, and this whole flamewar. Please read that message
first; it explains the context of this mail, and without it you might
misinterpret this one.
This message is about my opinion of the DUL, which I support and use.
In fact
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:56:05AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
That mail direct from dynamic dialups is a problem is recognised
throughout the community. Not only did Paul Vixie, the author of
BIND, and other leading lights of the Internet, decide to host,
support, etc, the DUL. Many ISPs
Hi,
I don't like getting spam. I dislike the fact that I am
inconvenienced. I have not yet decided to give in, though. And, in
my opinion, bouncing mail from people innocent of sending spam is
giving in to spammers.
I ifnd this phenomena remniscent of may people in the trhoes
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
It's all going to end in heat death anyway.
Of course, so we might as well turn off the computers right now.
Cheers
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:00:52AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
You appeal to authority, call for bandwagon jumping, and rely upon
anecdotal accounts, but have yet to point to an RFC that forbids or
discourages the establishment of outbound SMTP connections from dialup
machines, whether they
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The problem with DUL is that they don't care if the people
blocked ever sent any spam. The have the wrong color ski^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
type of connection, and must be the enemy.
The analogy is flawed. Solutions have
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:09:41PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:00:52AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
You appeal to authority, call for bandwagon jumping, and rely upon
anecdotal accounts, but have yet to point to an RFC that forbids or
discourages the
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:58:18PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The problem with DUL is that they don't care if the people
blocked ever sent any spam. The have the wrong color ski^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
type of
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:58:18PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
The analogy is flawed. Solutions have been offered several
times owner for DUL-listed or potentially DUL-listed users.
All of which should not be too difficult to set up for
a Debian
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:42:21AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
Furthermore, that any issue is unspecified in an RFC does not mean that the
RFC's already address all issues that need to be addressed.
Yes, exactly. Therefore ommission of any comment about dialup users
making direct SMTP
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:49:17AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
What mechanism do you propose that people on dynamic IP's use to identify
their mails as non-spam while still making direct SMTP connections to the
MX host of the destination domain?
None, it is not necessary.
Hamish
--
11 matches
Mail list logo
