On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 07:55:23AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Your point? Most companies need to be hit with a cluestick, that doesn't
> mean they don't do it. There is a very large free wifi provider near me
> that actually blocks anything that doesn't have www. E.g; they don't
> block ports, they blocks names!
The only way that will ever improve is if (1) people point out why what
they're doing is stupid and (2) people who are willing to pay for real ISP
service stop using them. The IETF has, for instance, been using Hiltons a
lot recently, and as a result the general brain-deadedness of their in-room
ISP service has been going down. It costs real money to hire non-stupid
DBAs; why would we assume that the cheapest ISP knows what it's doing?
> >Nobody should be using "direct SMTP" as such in this day and age. That's
> >what the submission port is for.
> That may be correct but it certainly isn't reality.
Everyone who continues to insist that this "reality" must continue is a
willing contributor to the spambot world. There is a well-defined, clear
facility for you to show that your mail is legit. If you are unwilling to
use it, you are just contributing to the problem. That said, I agree with
you. (The publication of the recent BCP may be enough to get my own ISP to
fix their stupidity :( -- see the headers!)
Old sigs will return after re-constitution of blue smoke
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2007-11-29 17:54:44|
|Subject: Re: Can we please refuse mail to the list from list addresses?|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2007-11-29 17:06:41|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Republic of Ireland Press Contact|