[ all intersting stuff stripped ]
Well, sometime this weekend, I'll crank up my work laptop and post a
nastygram to the Webnazi (oops Webmaster) of the offending list to see
if he'll consider dropping the blocking crap otherwise unsubscribe me.
Based on some interchanges with other users in the
Don't know, but a pox on all of them! We even had this crap on this
list back when Doug experimented with that type of service.
Which is why black lists are hopefully going to be superceded by the newer
statistical and bayesian spam filtering style of control...
I got a bounce the other day
James McDonald wrote:
Address blocks are more popular/easier to apply policies on than
single addresses. So the tendency is for us to get tarred with the
same brush as a spammer on the same network as us.
I'll second that. There are Australian sites I can't visit from work
because they are in
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 09:28:44AM -0700, Condon Thomas A KPWA wrote:
James McDonald wrote:
Address blocks are more popular/easier to apply policies on than
single addresses. So the tendency is for us to get tarred with the
same brush as a spammer on the same network as us.
I'll second that.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:46:41 -0700
Bill Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
On the other hand, there are serious problems with open relays and
open proxies on major cable providers such as Comcast, Road Runner, et
al caused by clueless folks who just plug in their Windows viruses
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 12:50:28PM -0500, David A. Bandel wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:46:41 -0700
...
We had a little debate going over Internet Service Deniers on the
ISP-Linux list. A number of ISPs supported denying outgoing ports
(mostly 25). While I don't like some traffic, denying ports
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:34:29 -0700
Bill Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 12:50:28PM -0500, David A. Bandel wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:46:41 -0700
...
We had a little debate going over Internet Service Deniers on the
ISP-Linux list. A number of ISPs supported
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 01:52:19PM -0500, David A. Bandel wrote:
...
The above notwithstanding:
1. blocking is denying a service, not providing it
Blocking a service that's prohibited in their Terms of Service.
2. travelers who go to a hotel often don't know the mail servers of
whatever
On Tuesday 01 July 2003 14:52 pm, David A. Bandel wrote:
Spam is a byproduct of stupidity and laziness. Some
stupid/lazy companies include Norton. I get spam from them regularly
about how they can help keep my Windoze systems virus free (didn't
know X windows had viruses).
Hmmm... I
I just had an interesting experience today in changing my subscriber
address on another list.
My service changed today from attbi.com to comcast.net, so I began
changing my subscriber address on various lists. No problemo, until I
came to a list that uses a ^£!%fscking service called
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:36:13 -0400
Kurt Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoth Collins Richey:
I just had an interesting experience today in changing my subscriber
address on another list.
My service changed today from attbi.com to comcast.net, so I began
changing my subscriber address
11 matches
Mail list logo
