From owner-freebsd-current Sun Sep 26 10:22:46 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mta4.snfc21.pbi.net (mta4.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.142]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056ED153B3 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:22:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jazepeda@pacbell.net) Received: from zippy.dyn.ml.org ([207.214.149.13]) by mta4.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.05.24.18.28.p7) with ESMTP id <0FIO006R1G9NUR@mta4.snfc21.pbi.net> for current@FreeBSD.ORG; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:22:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.dyn.ml.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE6191645; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex Zepeda Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups In-reply-to: <63983.938365645@noop.colo.erols.net> To: Gary Palmer Cc: Brian Somers , current@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Gary Palmer wrote: > No, actually, there is absolutely nothing which says that you, as a > subscriber of good standing, *have* to be allowed to connect to > non-local port 25. I think it is perfectly reasonable that the ISP > require that you buy a static IP (with N months initially prepaid) or > something to get port 25 privs. Why?! The only ISP I've used at all that blocked port 25 was AT&T. I think it's perfectly unreasonable. Luckily for me, the only PBI server that's been down for any serious amount of time (as far as I could tell) was the POP3 server farm. But back with GST/Wenet/Hooked, their OGM servers did go down and were slow enough to make me not want to use them. Even on the rare occasion when they did work (all two of them; and now one), I liked having the extra control over my mail. Now.. well I use PBI's "smarthost" merely because hub won't accept anything else. > If you want to go after the real source of the problem, then lobby > your local government to make spammers pay for the damage they do. > Otherwise the `freedom' of the old internet will be worn away because > ISPs will have to protect themselves more and more. No, the real problem is the ISPs who can't fund decent servers and provide decent service. If they could take care of spam and provide a 99% reliable service, I'd have very few problems with using their mailservers. - alex Experience something different With our new imported dolly She's lovely, warm, inflatable And we guarantee her joy - The Police To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message