On Saturday, May 1, 2004, 5:33:14 PM, Michael W.Cocke wrote: > On Sat, 1 May 2004 16:02:30 +0200, you wrote:
>>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Michael W.Cocke" >>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 23:32:48 -0400, you wrote: >>> >>> >At 05:23 PM 4/30/04 -0500, Hoyt Bailey wrote: >>> >> > Could you perhaps be more specific about your problem? being >>> >> > "considered a spammer" isn't a very specific problem >>> >>Brett Miller explained it logically. My major complaint was that dial >>> >>up users are considered as possible spamers if I were sending spam I >>> >>would at least have a direct connection to the net. >>> > >>> >That's untrue.. dialup users are considered potentially spammers IF they >>> >don't relay via their ISP's mailserver. >>> >>> and what (he asked with a straight face) are we supposed to do if our >>> so-called ISPs don't offer a mail server? >> >>Can you give an example of an ISP in this situation? > Believe it or not, AT&T business DSL doesn't offer mail services (or > DNS service) unless you spring for the 5 IP address plan - which costs > $50.00 per month more than the single IP plan that I use. I would > have to use their webmail system if I wanted to use their mail server. > Not going to happen. LOL! IP service without DNS. There's a novel "unbundling" concept that probably no one else considered (since it's such a bad idea). Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
