WOW! So the niggling about of customer-specified and/or -delegated "vanity PTR" is completely null and void now?
That was never what AOL said, afaik.
As one of my posts in this thread said, I don't have that list of networks/netmasks, so blocking by the PTR hostname was a very effective equivalent.
So if a DSL subscriber who managed to have PTR hostname matching his domain name, then he wouldn't be caught in a "generic PTR dsl/cable hostname" filter.
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"?
When I see DSL pacbell IP's hammering an IMGate machine with 30k connects per hour for 4 or 5 days wihtout pause, I don't give FF whether it's a dynamic or static DSL ip.
When I see 100's of dsl/cable IPs being rejected for diverse reasons, I don't care whether they are static or dynamic.
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
If they can segregate their IP allocations so they they have some nets as dynamic and with the ISP's generic PTR hostname (this is what AOL and I would target), and the have other nets for their legit clients, then the latter would not be systematically blocked, while the former would be clearly in AOL and my crosshairs.
, 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.
Anybody got any numbers of DSL clients who want to run their own mailservers? I bet it's minuscule, both in number of IPs and the volume legit msgs, in comparsion with the number of abusive IPs and the volumes of spam.
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)
DSL belongs to the telcos, world over.
still, it would be shrewd business and result in the eventual dominance of the most pervasive provider.
I really can't this sinister AOL motivation. they are not a big players in DSL or broadband. Their rr unit is not even the dominant Internet/cable 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.
They aren't stupid. Blocking is always imprecise, always a trade-off.
We have clients using flawless 1.4+ Mbps speed DSL in US metro areas.
I'm in a metro area, but still 18k feet from the CO. So 192 it is.
Perhaps your poor personal experience with DSL has led you to think that it is inherently not a business-class technology
Not at all. I also have a Covad T-1 delivered over 2 x SBC DSL (but they have repeaters to beat the 18k feet, I asked the SBC installer, so it's only DSL (dry copper) from the repeater to me).
but it is well up to par if you have the right provider.
DSL depends totally on the wire distance to the CO, the physics, not the 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
exactly, DSL belongs to the telcos, if not now, then med/long term, world over. The LL unbundling is political window dressing, pro forma game. The telcos will never play nice with the DSL independents renting their copper.
Len
_____________________________________________________________________ http://MenAndMice.com/DNS-training: New York; Seattle; Chicago IMGate.MEIway.com: anti-spam gateway, effective on 1000's of sites, free
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/
