> Of course. As said, if the list causes only people with *dynamic* IPs to > be forced to use their ISP's MTA, I'd agree that it's a very good idea.
Very good idea... but how is the RBL going to stay so up-to-date with what is static, what is dynamic, etc.? It sounds good, but would be a logistic and administrative nightmare to keep it all current. Or has this been automated (or some other way)? > > But if we start using a policy that declares all endpoint-to-endpoint > mail illegal, allowing the direct to MX SMTP privilege only to large(r) > sites, then we'll set ourselves back to some form of uucp, and > practically start to advocate a single policing global mail hub that's > in the end responsible for everyone's mail. I'm sure it would require a > MS Passport account ;-) Good grief... don't give Micro$oft any MORE ideas ;-) > > But where do you stop the accountibility chain? At which point (size!) > do sites become responsible for their own actions? > > Indeed, the only sensible answer seems to be "if it has a fixed IP > address". Not whether they are intermittently connected, whether they > use PPP, or what their bandwith is. That has nothing to do with it. > > In short, "dialup" is the wrong name. It should be "dynamic IP". This sounds good to me. If it is a dynamic IP, then they can keep redialing (if dialup) and hence get around Spamcop's blocks. SO, block the dynamic IPs, then use Spamcop to handle the static IPs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
