From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 16: 2:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1855F158F1 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:02:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17886; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:02:04 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990928165117.05315a40@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:01:59 -0600 To: Terry Lambert From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, alk@pobox.com, gary@eyelab.psy.msu.edu, chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199909282243.PAA12513@usr07.primenet.com> References: <4.2.0.58.19990924172733.047be8c0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 10:43 PM 9/28/99 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: >The problem with the DUL is that it is biases against a technology, >rather than being biased against those who would abuse it. Hmmm. Is that really so? It seems to me that what we have here is not a bias against a technology per se, but rather a restriction on a particular type of account. This kind of account is often abused. Requiring the customer with that kind of account to pass e-mail through a certain type of gateway -- one which can detect or limit such abuse -- seems like a reasonable restriction. I was dubious; I waited more than a year after hearing about the DUL to implement it. But when I finally tried it, I found that it was highly effective; it targeted spam like a laser and rejected no legitimate traffic. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message