[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: calling Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> [the long version]

On Thu, Jun 03, 1999 at 08:36:54PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 03, 1999 at 11:41:02AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > 
> > > So you're saying that, instead of a commercial vendor's services,
> > > I must now find 15 of my RL friends who are willing to fork over
> > > $300 in registration fee, and $100 per month;
> >
> > it annoys the hell out of me to have words put in my mouth. first
> > joseph ane brandon, and now you. is this some national character
> > trait/flaw that you yanks suffer from or something?
> No, we just happen to be able to count.

and ignore inconvenient facts, some of which are pointed out (again) in
my next paragraph below.

> The part of this message that I removed simply for it's bulk (gees I
> thought I was the one with the reputation for blathering on), provides
> the same relative numeric costs that I expressed ($1300 ~= $1500).

that is $1300 *AUSTRALIAN* dollars. or roughly $830 US dollars. for
a 64K ISDN line, not a T1 and as i said, that is for ridiculously
overpriced internet here in australia (australian internet users would
be ecstatic if we could get anything like T1 speeds for a mere $1500
US/month)...similar or better services are available in most parts of
the US for significantly less.

i repeat: it does not take a $1500/mo T1 line to run a mail server with
a static IP address. it can be done cheaply. it can even be done for
free if you have contacts in the right places.

> Why am I a stupid yank because I go to a local community vendor and
> pay market price for the service?

did i say you were a "stupid yank"?  No. once again, you are attempting
to put words in my mouth.

> Why should I be compelled to use some "sophisticated" access games,
> like clubbing, just to be able to send and recieve mail?

internet access of any kind is not free, generally. clubbing together
with other people is one very useful way of bringing the costs down - by
pooling resources, everyone gets more than they can afford individually.

nobody is trying to compel you to do anything. but pooling resources
does make economic sense in some circumstances.

or is that concept some sort of communistic anathema to you
free-marketeering americans?

> It appears that the only reason is that folks like you are so fed up
> with even the thought that someone might send you some unsolicited
> e-mail that you are willing to destroy the connectivity we all need
> and enjoy, just so you personally will not ever get a single byte of
> unsolicited data shoved into your machine.

it's not that difficult to understand.

it is MY mail server: it is MY choice whether to accept mail delivery or
not.  I choose NOT to accept mail from dialup ip addresses because in my
experience almost all mail from dialup IPs is spam.

if anyone with a dialup wants to email me then they can use the mail
relay services provided by their ISP. if they choose not to do that then
i do not care in the slightest whether their mail gets through to me or
not...they have a viable way to communicate with me if it is important
to them to do so.

> It is you who is being egocentric, rejecting valid communications from
> fellow net citizens based on their domain,

1. wrong.  DUL has nothing to do with the sender's domain. it is a check
of their IP address.

2. i am under no obligation to accept any communication from anyone/anywhere.


craig sanders

Reply to: