[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On 18 Jan 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > Mate Wierdl writes:
> > > On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 12:22:44AM +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> > > > You show as little concern for the rights and feelings of others
> > > > as spammers do.
> > >
> > > Compuserve is about $15/mo in Hungary, and then comes the phonebill (no
> > > unlimited service exists). A University's professor salary is about
> > > $250-300/mo.
> > >
> > > But: I think Russ was just suggesting things, and I am sure in light of
> > > European and 3rd world statistics, the proposals will be modified.
> >
> > No, I expect that in view of the costs, spam wouldn't be a problem, so
> > that providers of high-cost dialup service would just insert an MX
> > record for all of their dialups. Remember, the criteria is "ISP
> > trusts the host", not "host is a dialup".
>
> I find that quite questionable, why would anyone want to receive
> mail for (suppose, which are _dynamic_ addresses)
>
> pppN.host.domain ?
Nobody would look up the the MX record to send mail. It would only be
used for the anti-spam step #3 I laid out earlier: Get the host's name
from a PTR record, and look up an MX record for it. If it has an MX
record, then the ISP is delegating it's trust to that dialup. So if
you trust the ISP to send you mail, then you trust it's dialup to send
you mail.
Very likely, all the people complaining would have no problem because
their ISP would insert an MX record for their dialups.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
