On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 02:34:17PM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
As many of you know AOL is contemplating a pay to send email plan. So
I'm protesting it by doing a DEFER on my lowest MX record server. The
other server will accept AOL email, but the DEFER puts a line in AOL log
files every time AOL
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 02:34:17PM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
As many of you know AOL is contemplating a pay to send email plan. So
I'm protesting it by doing a DEFER on my lowest MX record server. The
other server will accept AOL email, but the DEFER puts a line
Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As many of you know AOL is contemplating a pay to send email plan.
[...]
.ifdef LOWEST_MX
defermessage = WE PROTEST AOL PAY TO SEND EMAIL PLAN!
hosts = *.aol.com
.endif
the pay is only for the mail received by AOL. and judging by the
Marc Perkel wrote:
As many of you know AOL is contemplating a pay to send email plan.
*trim*
Let's be a bit more precise.
- all 'free' mail has a cost to send or receive, somewhere, born
by somebody, usually as part of an ISP service fee, or staff,
student, organization membership costs.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], W B Hacker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
AOL users may, or may not, see an increase in 'legitimized'
spam. IF [ any | enough] organizations choose to pay the fee.
Might AOL then also charge the *users* another fee to have
I don't allways agree with EFFs position on things - especially spam.
But the payment of money isn't a good way to distinguish real email from
spam. It quashes free speech and allows spammers to pay to send you
spam. I also tend to protest and kind of attempt to take what is
essentially an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
I don't allways agree with EFFs position on things - especially spam.
But the payment of money isn't a good way to distinguish real email from
spam.
as it happens I agree [and
Marc Perkel wrote:
I don't allways agree with EFFs position on things - especially spam.
But the payment of money isn't a good way to distinguish real email from
spam.
The payment of money to the *recipeint* might be ;-)
- but to skip-over spam checks? Isn't bribing a policeman a
crime in
Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the payment of money isn't a good way to distinguish real email from
spam. It quashes free speech
free speech is quashed because of what? i don't get under what premise
you've had came to this conclusion. or is it a platitude? *snicker*
free speech
Richard Clayton wrote:
*trimmed*
Then, for consistency and the proper impact, you should be arranging to
do the same with Yahoo! and researching how to distinguish the clients
of Habeas and Ironport's Bonded Sender programme (I believe MSN and
Hotmail are signed up) ... and doubtless some
On 04/03/06, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As many of you know AOL is contemplating a pay to send email plan.
snip
Do some proper research before blindly forwarding
politically-motivated invective. When you can personally verify each
of the claims in the EFF boilerplate email, then come
11 matches
Mail list logo
