From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 25 11:22: 9 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com (cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com [24.2.89.207]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0529B14DC9; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:22:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cjc@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com) Received: (from cjc@localhost) by cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA39003; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:25:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from cjc) From: "Crist J. Clark" Message-Id: <199909251825.OAA39003@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups In-Reply-To: <19990925151703.A74168@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> from Nik Clayton at "Sep 25, 1999 03:17:03 pm" To: nik@FreeBSD.ORG (Nik Clayton) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:24:59 -0400 (EDT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), davids@webmaster.com (David Schwartz), alk@pobox.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Reply-To: cjclark@home.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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