Igmar Palsenberg writes:
> > Ugh. What rubbish.
> >
> > The moment I detect my provider changing anything beyond a TTL is the
> > moment I find a new provider.
>
> The 'problem' is a bunch of stupid American politics (excuse anyone
> American), than passed a law that all spam containing
Igmar Palsenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The 'problem' is a bunch of stupid American politics (excuse anyone
> American), than passed a law that all spam containing a remove adress is
> legal.
No, they haven't. Some bill passed the house (or senate, I can't
remember) but it hasn't been
> Ugh. What rubbish.
>
> The moment I detect my provider changing anything beyond a TTL is the
> moment I find a new provider.
The 'problem' is a bunch of stupid American politics (excuse anyone
American), than passed a law that all spam containing a remove adress is
legal.
So that means I
Ugh. What rubbish.
The moment I detect my provider changing anything beyond a TTL is the
moment I find a new provider.
The 'problem' is a bunch of stupid American politics (excuse anyone
American), than passed a law that all spam containing a remove adress is
legal.
So that means I get
Igmar Palsenberg writes:
Ugh. What rubbish.
The moment I detect my provider changing anything beyond a TTL is the
moment I find a new provider.
The 'problem' is a bunch of stupid American politics (excuse anyone
American), than passed a law that all spam containing a remove
Ricky Beam wrote:
> As an aside, they also have/had agressive transparent web proxying in
> the network... everything on port 80 coming and going is/was cached.
> EVERYTHING.
That's quite nice when it works, but sometimes the proxy breaks. Then
it really _sucks_.
You fetch a page and get a
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Ricky Beam wrote:
[snip]
> As an aside, they also have/had agressive transparent web proxying in
> the network... everything on port 80 coming and going is/was cached.
> EVERYTHING.
Ugh. If bandwidth is a problem, charge them by the Gb and let them save
money by reducing
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> Then they need more competant admins. It isnt _hard_ to transproxy outgoing
>> smtp traffic via a spamtrapper that checks for valid src/destination and
>> headers.
>
>I can't believe that you are suggesting this.
Mindspring did this (maybe still
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> Then they need more competant admins. It isnt _hard_ to transproxy outgoing
> smtp traffic via a spamtrapper that checks for valid src/destination and
> headers.
I can't believe that you are suggesting this.
The moment you being to start encouraging
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
Then they need more competant admins. It isnt _hard_ to transproxy outgoing
smtp traffic via a spamtrapper that checks for valid src/destination and
headers.
I can't believe that you are suggesting this.
The moment you being to start encouraging
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Ricky Beam wrote:
[snip]
As an aside, they also have/had agressive transparent web proxying in
the network... everything on port 80 coming and going is/was cached.
EVERYTHING.
Ugh. If bandwidth is a problem, charge them by the Gb and let them save
money by reducing their
11 matches
Mail list logo
