On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:49:17AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What mechanism do you propose that people on dynamic IP's use to identify
> their mails as non-spam while still making direct SMTP connections to the
> MX host of the destination domain?
None, it is not necessary.
Hamish
--
Ham
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:42:21AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Furthermore, that any issue is unspecified in an RFC does not mean that the
> RFC's already address all issues that need to be addressed.
Yes, exactly. Therefore ommission of any comment about dialup users
making direct SMTP conne
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:58:18PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>>
>> The analogy is flawed. Solutions have been offered several
>> times owner for DUL-listed or potentially DUL-listed users.
>> All of which should n
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:58:18PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The problem with DUL is that they don't care if the people
> > blocked ever sent any spam. The have the wrong color ski^H^H^H^H^H^
icult to identify what is spam and what is not based on
criteria easily evaluated by alogorithmic processes amenable to
computation.
Furthermore, that any issue is unspecified in an RFC does not mean that the
RFC's already address all issues that need to be addressed.
If any DUL users feel that th
; (phone, cable, electricity) providers will jump on the service
> provider bandwagon.
Then there is a market for relay providers.
> You must not forget the users. If Debian comes to the consensus that
> DUL is a Good Thing, this affects users, too. All MTA packages should
> probably
said in my other mail, since we all
> need to communicate with each other, either every developer must be
> forbidden from using the DUL, or every developer must either not send
> mail direct from their dynamic dialup, or must be prepared to send it
> differently if there is a problem.
You
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The problem with DUL is that they don't care if the people
> blocked ever sent any spam. The have the wrong color ski^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
> type of connection, and must be the enemy.
The analogy is flawed.
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:00:52AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You appeal to authority, call for bandwagon jumping, and rely upon
> anecdotal accounts, but have yet to point to an RFC that forbids or
> discourages the establishment of outbound SMTP connections from dialup
> machines, whether t
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It's all going to end in heat death anyway.
Of course, so we might as well turn off the computers right now.
Cheers
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rhoes
of a war: they become obsessed by the enemy; and collateral damage is
increasingly acceptable in the pursuit of the war.
I have not yet gotten that numbed out.
The problem with DUL is that they don't care if the people
blocked ever sent any spam. The have the wrong c
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:56:05AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> That mail direct from dynamic dialups is a problem is recognised
> throughout the community. Not only did Paul Vixie, the author of
> BIND, and other leading lights of the Internet, decide to host,
> support, etc, the DUL
I've just sent another, long, message about mail acceptance,
blacklisting, and this whole flamewar. Please read that message
first; it explains the context of this mail, and without it you might
misinterpret this one.
This message is about my opinion of the DUL, which I support and use.
In
13 matches
Mail list logo
