Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:24:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> To: nik@FreeBSD.ORG (Nik Clayton) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), davids@webmaster.com (David Schwartz), alk@pobox.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups Message-ID: <199909251825.OAA39003@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> In-Reply-To: <19990925151703.A74168@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> from Nik Clayton at "Sep 25, 1999 03:17:03 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nik Clayton wrote,
> On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 11:19:09PM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > This doesn't work when you attempt to define an "everybody but X"
> > group. It doesn't matter if "X" is "whites" or "blacks" or
> > "people with Brazialian ancestry" or "people who don't have
> > static IP addresses, either because they are unavailable in
> > their region, or because they are too poor".
>
> Just as a side point -- don't assume that you can't be a dial up customer
> and not have a static IP address. Demon Internet, one of the biggest ISPs
> in the UK allocate static IP addresses to their customers, and have done
> since they started.
I think this brings up a good point people seem to forget from time to
time. Even though the Big Boys are muscling the Little Guys out of
business in a lot of places, most anywhere (in the US at least), you
still do have a choice as to which ISP you sign up with. You can
balance what services, AUP, and prices exist at one versus another and
chose the one that best fits your needs and desires. Also, remember
different users have different needs and desires[0], so the fact that
an ISP's methods and rules are not what _you_ want, does not
necessarily mean they are "wrong."
And to completely break the thread another way, what about
reverse-lookup as a requirement for mail to be accepted? At work, we
have blocks of addresses that do not reverse-lookup from the outside,
but they sure are static addresses assigned to our company. How are
the arguments different between blocking a dynamic, dial-in IP
addresses, versus blocking ones that do not reverse-lookup[1]? In
either case, there is no a priori reason to assume that any mail from
the address is SPAM, yet no one seems to think that a blanket rule to
block such machines is unfair. We just had to deal with the fact all
mail from our domain had to relay from a machine on the edge with
reverse-lookup to ROW.
[0] FreeBSD and most other UNIX-type hosts might not want to have to
relay through the ISP's mailhosts, but for a typical M$ box or
Mac, a relay host is _required._ An ISP has every right to shape
their services to the market of their choice... even if it is bad
for kids like us. :(
[1] Not only email, but often times ftp and other services can be
denied when an address does not reverse-lookup. Understandable
when trying to d/l export-restricted executables, but an annoyance
at other times.
--
Crist J. Clark cjclark@home.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909251825.OAA39003>