hi andre
My position is this:
If you run any kind of free-dial service where you don't have any
direct identification or signed contract with your customer, then
you almost must run some kind of SPAM-block.
If you don't do free-dial service and you have identification of
your customer and
On Thursday 30 October 2003 09:16, Steven Glogger wrote:
I agree fully with your position. this is also the same position i
have. maybe we should consider, that if you provder free-dial services
(without identification of customer) to block SMTP completely.
Why not ? There could be another
hi erich
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Erich Hohermuth
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:49 AM
Full ack. We all know since Swinog 7, that Free could mean Free Beer or
Freedom...
this leads me to the question if the internet is GPL
* on the Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:56:46AM +0100, Steven Glogger wrote:
this leads me to the question if the internet is GPL or public domain?
or is it unter M$ license (aarghs)
Its under a BSD-License. So feel free to put up an alternate commercial
internet ;)
Seegras
--
Those who give up
(what was anyway the ULR of dr. mike widmer? weblaw.ch?)
AFAIR www.openlaw.ch
--
Cheers,
Roman Hochuli
CCNP, CQS Cable
GPS-Technik AG
Zürcherstrasse 139
8952 Schlieren
Switzerland
Tel +41-1-7329977
Fax +41-1-7311840
X-NCC-RegID: ch.gps
While talking a little bit annoyed about taxes:
...at
Peter Keel wrote:
You're mixing up two issues:
* Free or Unregistered dialup
* Situations where you know your customer.
Anybody using free dialups must cope with certain restrictions,
But you said 'Free' or 'Unregistered' dialup. Someone earlier
mentioned DSL/cable connections. Are
* Free or Unregistered dialup
* Situations where you know your customer.
Anybody using free dialups must cope with certain restrictions,
But you said 'Free' or 'Unregistered' dialup. Someone earlier
mentioned DSL/cable connections. Are those what you'd consider
'unregistered'? I'd agree with
Common Carrier in the sense that someone is obliged to offer
certain types of connectivity: No, not for Internet (some issues
with Swisscom and Voice [Grundversorgungsauftrag] do not concern
Data traffic, although this may change with the upcoming revision
of telecommunication law
Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
PS. Looking forward: When do we start implementing RMX (Reverse Mail
Exchange) records in DNS, following the IETF proposal? And then: Don't add
entries on your complete IP net block, just the designated SMTP servers
please...
RMX doesn't work in real life.
--
Andre
: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt
becauseof Spam blocks
Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
PS. Looking forward: When do we start implementing RMX (Reverse Mail
Exchange) records in DNS, following the IETF proposal
Next use either connection limiting features (such as FreeBSD ipfw2)
Just one word of caution on this one: I've had this activated on
our mail server (IPFW2 in 4.x-STABLE) a couple of months ago, and
it lead to very odd memory corruption issues (panics that _all_
looked like hardware problems,
] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt
becauseof Spam blocks
Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
Tend to suggest the implementation of mac based machines (e.g. Nomadix
Service Engine) for dial-up customers - hey, no problems with DHCP,
accidentally fixed IP addresses ...and every SMTP port 25 traffic
Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
SMTP-AUTH (plain text and preferably CRAM-MD5), SMTPafterPOP or similar are
highly encouraged for any SMTP server - otherwise another dial-up IP will be
listed on the RBLs very soon and the value of your private server becomes
very limited ;-)
Again NO reason for
13 matches
Mail list logo
