On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:09:41PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > 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 they have dynamically assigned IP's or not. > > RFCs do not forbid or discourage spam either, yet most people > do not consider it to be a good idea. Weak analogy. Specification of a set of circumstances under which Internet hosts are expected to initiate (or accept) SMTP connections is a technical issue well within the scope of the existing RFC's. I'd imagine RFC's don't forbid spam (if in fact they don't -- I don't know) because it is difficult 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 the specification within a standards-track RFC of a set of circumstances under which Internet hosts are expected to initiate (or accept) SMTP connections is an undesirable end, I'd certainly like to hear the reasons why. > > Once you have done that, you won't have to shore up your position with > > invalid inferences. > > Nor will you. You have asserted, but offer no evidence. Please identify the fallacious reasoning or false premise you claim to perceive. -- G. Branden Robinson | Yesterday upon the stair, Debian GNU/Linux | I met a man who wasn't there. branden@ecn.purdue.edu | He wasn't there again today, roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | I think he's from the CIA.
Attachment:
pgpqPaldxsxHD.pgp
Description: PGP signature