On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 08:47, Derek Martin wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 07:50:01AM -0500, Ben Boulanger wrote: > > On 29 Mar 2003, Scott Garman wrote: > > > I clearly understand the spam problem, but this does not seem to be a > > > reasonable solution to it. I could even see allowing individual AOL > > > users the ability to set brain-dead, highly restrictive anti-spam rules > > > like this, but not making a blanket decision for all of its users. > > > > This is an -incredibly- reasonable solution! I'm psyched that AOL has > > finally made a good decision about it. I run an smtp server at my place > > too, but it's trivial to hand the mail off to another server that'll > > accept it. > > Well, I have to disagree. That is, it is trivial to hand my mail off > to my provider's smtp server, but the whole point of me running my own > is I DON'T WANT THAT. I don't want to rely on their servers working, > and frankly I don't want my mail ever making it to a disk drive in > their server farm. Granted, the mail I send traverses their wires, > which is already more than I want to allow, but I see no reason to be > forced into using resources that I don't want to use. My connection > has adequate bandwidth to handle the traffic of my tiny little e-mail > server, and I'm not a spammer. So I should not be punnished for the > sins of others...
I'll echo Derek's objections, and add one more: I don't want to be subject to the policies of my ISP's mail server. In particular, more and more ISPs are starting to require that all mail sent through their SMTP servers must use return addresses from their domain. I don't believe Comcast is one of them yet, but Verizon has had this policy for their DSL customers for almost a year. Scott -- Scott A. Garman Unix System Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] UNH Nuclear Physics Group _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
