In the absence of the P2P applications, the limits were fine, so hurting
the P2P
application may be a preferable solution to the ISP charging everyone more
to support the excessive bandwidth usage of the 2-3% of subscribers who
use
P2P applications,
I'd like to know where you get the 2-3%
>MSO's typically understand this as eyeball heavy content
>retrieval, not content generation
I was under the impression Comcast advertised Internet access, which
is read/write. Clearly I was mistaken...
Really, the heart of the matter is that in doing this they are not
being honest with their cu
On 10/22/07, Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> In the UK at least, option 1) is financially more favourable for
> ISPs, since the data flow is
> vendor -> transit -> last mile -> end user,
> rather than
> end user -> last mile -> last mile -> end user.
>
> The last mil
On 10/22/07, Alexander Harrowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >MSO's typically understand this as eyeball heavy content
> >retrieval, not content generation
>
> I was under the impression Comcast advertised Internet access, which
> is read/write. Clearly I was mistaken...
This is correct,
On 10/22/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/22/07, William Herrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Do you publish SPF records so that remote sites can detect forgeries
> > claiming to be from your domain?
>
> In other words "Do you play russian roulette with your email
[ "Subject:" line corrected, noting that "SPAM" is a trademark
of Hormel and "spam" is the slang term for unsolicited bulk email. ]
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 10:27:24AM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> Of course, I fixed the issue for myself by simply blocking
> spamarrest.com. I have no need to c
Dave Pooser wrote:
Whenever I get one of those, I go ahead and confirm the message so the spam
gets through to the end user. I figure if they think I'm gonna filter their
mail for free, well, they get what they pay for. :^)
And that is probably just fine, as 99% of the true spam comes from e
On 10/22/07, Sean Figgins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dave Pooser wrote:
>
> > Whenever I get one of those, I go ahead and confirm the message so the spam
> > gets through to the end user. I figure if they think I'm gonna filter their
> > mail for free, well, they get what they pay for. :^)
>
> And that is probably just fine, as 99% of the true spam comes from email
> addresses (and often doamins) that either do not exist, or often are not
> configured to receive email.
I call BS. I ran sender-callout verification on my primary email server for
a while (before I became convinced it wa
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Where did you get that 99% #?
Statistics from my own mail server. Yours may vary. In the course of 6 months,
on one honey-pot email address, I received about 10,000 spam messages that were
classified as from forged addresses by spam assassin. I'm sure you are fa
Dave Pooser wrote:
I call BS. I ran sender-callout verification on my primary email server for
a while (before I became convinced it was mildly abusive, and stopped) and
typically blocked 2-3 spams per day. In fact, I had more FPs than legit spam
blocked by that method.
2-3 spams a day? That
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) I'm being asked to verify my address because some malware found my address
on a hard drive and stuck it in the From: field. I'm sorry, but if you're
asking me to verify that, it *is* a burden - you are admittedly *starting off*
assuming that it's bad and *needs* some
> I use an authenticated TLS-protected mailhost at home for submitting my
> email for delivery. Unfortunately, networks have taken to:
>
> outright blocking 25 and 587 except to their own servers.
Back in the day AT&T dial-up blocked port 25 outgoing (except to their own
servers) for the first
13 matches
Mail list logo
