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

Re: DUL (was Re: RBL report..)



On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:49:17AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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^H^H^H^H type of connection, and must be the enemy.
> >
> > The analogy is flawed. Solutions have been offered several times
> > owner for DUL-listed or potentially DUL-listed users.  All of which
> > should not be too difficult to set up for a Debian developer.
>
> The "solutions" that have been offered effectively result in
> concealing the fact that the ultimate origin of the mail is a dynamic
> IP,

that's because it is NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT that the ultimate origin was a
dynamic IP - the vast majority of email (at least, thatcoming from ISP
mail servers) does originate from a dynamic address.

The important factor is that the delivery attempt is coming direct from
a dynamic IP.

> therefore this is like asking people with the "wrong color skin" to
> paint it an "acceptable" color.

no, it's like saying "if you want to communicate with me, then do it
through some verifiable/accountable channel".

i.e. send it through a legitimate/known mail host and it will get
through but if you try to send it direct then it will bounce.

craig

--
craig sanders


Reply to: