Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > and assumes dialup/DSL people to be guilty by default.
>
> Dynamic IP address is the criteria.
Ok, if that the *only* criteria I don't have a problem with it.
> > Making the ISP accountible for the mail sent by their customers by
> > having it forced through their MTA in this way is a senseless way of
> > approaching the problem, IMHO.
>
> making ISPs responsible for the mail sent by their customers is the ONLY
> thing that actually works.
I don't get this. In the other thread you advocate that site size
shouldn't matter, and I agree to that when it comes to this thing.
Following this reasoning, would you want to force an ISP that only has a
single connection also to deliver all their mail through that upstream
ISP's MTAs, purely for accountability purposes?
That's nonsense. Hopefully DUL indeed only lists dynamic IP blocks.
Cheers,
Emile.
--
E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | e-advies@evbergen.xs4all.nl
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 | http://www.e-advies.info
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: