>That's not what I hear. I hear some people arguing that mailservers
>on dynamically assigned (i.e. anonymous) IP addresses are suspect. I
>hear them give statistics explaining *why* they consider them
>suspect. This is not nearly so strong a claim as the one you say is
>being promoted.
I'll be more than happy to argue that mail servers on dynamically
assigned addresses are suspect, or at least should be considered
untrusted. This does not seem like too big a stretch to me, nor does it
seem like something requiring a lot of justification. I don't see how
you can consider dynamic addresses anything BUT suspect, considering that
in the space of 30 seconds one host could be replaced by another. Would
you trust an rsh connection from an dynamic IP?
>I absolutely agree that lots of legit mail gets transacted on non-ISP
>mailservers. Nobody, in my memory of this conversation, has disagreed
>with this.
I don't disagree with this either. But I do posit that mail from a
dialup is more likely to be spam (based on my experience anyway) and also
that one of the main sources of spam is unblocked dialups.
shag
