Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 11:11:31AM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > 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.
what has size got to do with it?
ISPs are responsible for spam sent by their customers, regardless of the
size of the ISP (or the size of the customer for that matter).
> 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?
what the hell are you talking about?
are you being genuinely stupid or is this a deliberate attempt to put
straw-man words in my mouth?
most ISPs don't run on dynamic IP addresses. while there are some very
ignorant ISPs around, very few are stupid enough to even think of
running a mail server ona dynamic IP address.
i don't see any need to make special exemptions for ISPs who are stupid
enough to run on dynamic IPs.
craig sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org