> Anyway, AOL is blocking, or going to block, by network/netmask, not > by PTR hostname, IIUC.
WOW! So the niggling about of customer-specified and/or -delegated "vanity PTR" is completely null and void now? Then we're on to a very different concept from the one that this thread was originally "about," and I think everyone, even those sick of the OT passion play, should pay attention--the terms of the discussion seem to have changed radically in the last second. So is this--I hope, for the sanity of most--now about being on a broadband circuit type, call it "outgoing residential" or "lite," where the ToS expressly prohibits the outgoing end-to-end delivery of mail, but expecting to be able to defy the ToS and being hampered in your defiance by inter-ISP sharing of netblock info? Well, I certainly don't have any problem with THAT! If you're opening a business in area X, and the only broadband provider in that area does not offer an "outgoing business" contract, then you obviously have to roll with that punch adn use the smart host; or, if there's an unrestricted upgrade available, shell out the dough...however, this isn't what most people *appeared* to have been debating before now. Or has this--fearing the worst--now become about end-to-end delivery over *any* DSL or cable circuit, "don't even worry about the 'dynamic' part"? So an ISP providing business users with a local static IP range and a ToS allowing unrestricted legit use of bidirectional bandwidth will now have to either (a) revoke all of their ToSs and lose tons of customers as a result, or (b) build a mail infrastructure capable of handling the aggregate outgoing SMTP needs of thousands of businesses to whom they had previously only provided a pipe. Mayyyyybe coincidentally, this will wreak havoc on AOL Broadband's residential competition, though the competition's high-margin business DSL base itself would likely be hemorrhaged to business-centric (T-1, metro fiber) providers rather than to AOL directly, since AOL does not have a business package that I know of; still, it would be shrewd business and result in the eventual dominance of the most pervasive provider. They have the right to block on anything, and if it works, long live the gorilla. But if it doesn't work and they're hoist by their own petard in the opposite area--not because of spam, but because of false positives--hurrah. >>There is such a thing as SDSL which actually works quite well. > I had one, but it could only go 192/192. We have clients using flawless 1.4+ Mbps speed DSL in US metro areas. Perhaps your poor personal experience with DSL has led you to think that it is inherently not a business-class technology, but it is well up to par if you have the right provider. As I said in one of my posts, the right provider knows how to connect CPE and DSLAM reliably; I don't give a hoot about, and generally would have no reason to trust given the slim margins that most DSL ISPs run on, their SMTP prowess. The days when opening an ISP denoted the across-the-board mastery of terminal servers and dial-in pools, WAN routers and peering points, sendmail and BIND, etc. are long gone (to the degree that they led to inadequate specialization, market fitness, and stability, good riddance to them; yet to the degree that they were rubbed out by giant corporations with huge snail-mail campaigns offering shoddier service at cut-rate prices, I cry for them). -Sandy ------------------------------------ Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
