Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
David Palmer writes: ...which is quite often the basis for governmental regulation legislation. Except that it appears that in Brazil regulation is the source of the problem. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
Karsten, I was having similar issues with some of my email recipients. Are you on a cable modem, dsl, or dialup? If so, you're probably going to have to configure exim to use your ISP's mailserver as a smarthost. - Ryan On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 04:32:57AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote: Martin: Your spam blocking is bouncing my mail: - Forwarded message from Mail Delivery System [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Received: from mail by ganymede.tranquillity.lan with spam-scanned (Exim 4.22) id 1A0u2r-0006SS-AP for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 03:33:59 +0100 Received: from mail by ganymede.tranquillity.lan with local (Exim 4.22) id 1A0u2q-0006SP-Fq for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 03:33:52 +0100 X-Failed-Recipients: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Auto-Submitted: auto-generated From: Mail Delivery System [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 03:33:52 +0100 X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,PGP_SIGNATURE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT autolearn=ham version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: host a.mx.madduck.net [130.60.73.144]: 554 Service unavailable; [81.108.149.163] blocked using dynablock.easynet.nl, reason: Dynamic/Residential IP range listed by easynet.nl DynaBlock - http://dynablock.easynet.nl/errors.html -- This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. -- ... -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of Gestalt don't you understand? The golden rule of technical design: complexity is the enemy. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
also sprach Ryan Nowakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.21.1609 +0200]: I was having similar issues with some of my email recipients. Are you on a cable modem, dsl, or dialup? If so, you're probably going to have to configure exim to use your ISP's mailserver as a smarthost. We have taken the discussion up in private. The problem is in fact the dynamic IP of the dialup, which I filter using the dynablock RBL. It just happens that these RBL filter 65% of all my spam before it hits the content filters. At peak 150k mails/day this makes the difference between a usable system and one that is DoS'ed. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:42:21 +0200 martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: also sprach Ryan Nowakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.21.1609 +0200]: I was having similar issues with some of my email recipients. Are you on a cable modem, dsl, or dialup? If so, you're probably going to have to configure exim to use your ISP's mailserver as a smarthost. We have taken the discussion up in private. The problem is in fact the dynamic IP of the dialup, which I filter using the dynablock RBL. It just happens that these RBL filter 65% of all my spam before it hits the content filters. At peak 150k mails/day this makes the difference between a usable system and one that is DoS'ed. Unfortunately, there are many private victims for false positives of RBL-like lists, according to them, mostly due to the lack of response from our ISPs. As a matter of fact, I do have a fixed IP but that is taken out of a range of IPs mostly used for dynamic assignement. To make it worse, the ISP denies delegation of the reverse resolution. The problem is the administration of these RBL lists, which either tell you that any kind of communication with them will be published on usenet (including valid email addresses), as they presuppose that everybody in their list _is_ a spammer, or just don't give any chance to contact them. Although I can't contribute anything constructive to the above discussion, I do want to use this context to apeal these list's users, trying to convince their maintainers, that false positives do hurt people in many ways and that not being able to tell them, does'nt really help. Note: I was able to get some of my IPs out of some lists, but for a limited time only. One of the least cooperating lists seems to be spamhaus and their associates. People should really avoid them. -- Christoph Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ^X^C q quit :q ^C end x exit ZZ ^D ? help . -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 04:42:21PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: We have taken the discussion up in private. The problem is in fact the dynamic IP of the dialup, which I filter using the dynablock RBL. It just happens that these RBL filter 65% of all my spam before it hits the content filters. At peak 150k mails/day this makes the difference between a usable system and one that is DoS'ed. I've managed to block a lot of spam (didn't measure, but my guess is that I blocked 70%), using only lists that do not block dialup: reject_rbl_client relays.visi.com, reject_rbl_client relays.ordb.org, reject_rbl_client sbl.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client proxies.relays.monkeys.com, reject_rbl_client opm.blitzed.org, reject_rbl_client cbl.abuseat.org You may try these... They should leave a manageable amount of mail to spamassassin, or wharever else you use after the blocklists. J. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:32:38PM -0300, Christoph Simon wrote: Unfortunately, there are many private victims for false positives of RBL-like lists, according to them, mostly due to the lack of response from our ISPs. As a matter of fact, I do have a fixed IP but that is taken out of a range of IPs mostly used for dynamic assignement. To make it worse, the ISP denies delegation of the reverse resolution. I know lots of small businesses in Brazil that are in the exact same situation... The problem is the administration of these RBL lists, which either tell you that any kind of communication with them will be published on usenet (including valid email addresses), as they presuppose that everybody in their list _is_ a spammer, or just don't give any chance to contact them. Although I can't contribute anything constructive to the above discussion, I do want to use this context to apeal these list's users, trying to convince their maintainers, that false positives do hurt people in many ways and that not being able to tell them, does'nt really help. I think it depends on how you choose the lists you're going to use. For example, ordb only lists open relays, and inclusion/exclusion is automated. There is also relays.visi.com, which seems to be very conservative. I've had luck with proxies.relays.monkeys.com, too (no false positives at all), but I can't say they're conservative. But I decided not to block dialup... I'd be blocking some mail servers I've configured myself! :-) J. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
If your ISP is being a bitch about it, then switch! Otherwise just relay via their SMTP smarthost and the problem is solved. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
also sprach Jeronimo Pellegrini [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.21.1738 +0200]: reject_rbl_client relays.visi.com, reject_rbl_client relays.ordb.org, reject_rbl_client sbl.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client proxies.relays.monkeys.com, reject_rbl_client opm.blitzed.org, reject_rbl_client cbl.abuseat.org I already use all of these (plus ordb.org), but most of the spam (and most of the virus crap) is filtered by dynablock. I don't see why people don't relay via their ISPs. Is there one good reason? Maximum size? FTP! Privacy issues? Switch ISP! Aestethics? Colocate! Delays? Switch ISP! Crappy Content Filters? Switch ISP! -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:49:21 +0200 martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If your ISP is being a bitch about it, then switch! Otherwise just relay via their SMTP smarthost and the problem is solved. Living in a country where monopolies are ilegal, I could understand your suggestion. Unfortunately, this is not the rule but the exception (by percentage of population, not of market). -- Christoph Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ^X^C q quit :q ^C end x exit ZZ ^D ? help . -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 05:49:21PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: If your ISP is being a bitch about it, then switch! Otherwise just relay via their SMTP smarthost and the problem is solved. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of options. And the SMTP smarthost is veeery unreliable. Quite a mess. :-( J. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 05:55:20PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: I already use all of these (plus ordb.org), but most of the spam (and most of the virus crap) is filtered by dynablock. Did you try putting dynablock at the end of the list, so as to check if some dynablock rejects wouldn't be caught by the others first? I don't see why people don't relay via their ISPs. Is there one good reason? Sure: the smarthost doesn't work well, the ISP doesn't care, and for example, in the state of São Paulo, you either get a wireless connection (and that depends on where you are, and you need to be in a tall building), or you get DSL from Telefonica (ask anyone from Brazil abou them...) -- and what they call a business DSL connection doesn't even stay up 24/7. They disconnect you periodically so you have to authenticate again. Aaargh! We really should have more options. :-( There are other problems too, like, we have to pay the DSL provider, plus another ISP (dumb politics), the DSL provider doesn't offer SMTP hosts. Some people say they don't need anything but the DSL provider, and then they send email from their own servers... Anyway -- the situation is a mess, but the point is, quite some legitimate business are blocked by DULs. J. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
Also Sprach martin f krafft I don't see why people don't relay via their ISPs. Is there one good reason? Maximum size? FTP! Not always practical...but then, sending large files via e-mail is a crapshoot at best anyway. Aestethics? Colocate! Not sure what you mean by aestethics. Privacy issues? Switch ISP! Delays? Switch ISP! Crappy Content Filters? Switch ISP! Switching ISPs isn't always, and frequently isn't, feasible. Add to that, the possibility of mobile computing, and it can get to be a bit of a challenge. I, for example, take my laptop from work to home and back every day. It took a bit of doing to get a mail setup that worked reliably when my laptop is plugged in at both places. And the only reason that I *was* able to do that (short of co-locating my own box and running my own mail services) is that my ISP has signficant clue level (but I'm biased, I used to work there :) and supported smtp relaying with SMTP AUTH. So, I set up my email to always relay through my ISP and AUTH if necessary...otherwise, I'm not sure I could have set up a clean solution to always relay my mail. -- Jeff McAdams He who laughs last, thinks slowest. -- anonymous pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
Christoph Simon writes: Living in a country where monopolies are ilegal... Which country might that be? -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
also sprach Jeronimo Pellegrini [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.21.1902 +0200]: Did you try putting dynablock at the end of the list, so as to check if some dynablock rejects wouldn't be caught by the others first? Good point. I will do so now. Anyway -- the situation is a mess, but the point is, quite some legitimate business are blocked by DULs. Mh. I will do this: I'll turn off the dynablock RBL and see for a couple of days. If my system survives, maybe it'll be fine. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:01:04 -0500 John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christoph Simon writes: Living in a country where monopolies are ilegal... Which country might that be? I'm not a lawyer, so I can't offer you a legal definition of a monopoly, but ask Microsoft about their last big trial and that which still seem to be in process in the EU. Or wasn't that in the end about being a monopoly and taking unfair advantage of it? Here I've got a `provider' who provides nothing than privacy violating filters (causing absurd latencies) and tells me that he'll switch off my internet connection if I don't pay my monthly fee. It's like some protection fee to the mafia. Well, he's a contents provider, but I didn't ask for any of that Microsoft-only crap. Would you think that in the US a judge would accept the unilateral modification of a consumer's contract (Telefônica and Terra did this here), making you pay the double for less? Is there any company in the world which can do that without having the status of a monopoly? -- Christoph Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ^X^C q quit :q ^C end x exit ZZ ^D ? help . -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
At 2003-09-21T15:49:21Z, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If your ISP is being a bitch about it, then switch! Otherwise just relay via their SMTP smarthost and the problem is solved. Martin, First, I've beaten this to death on Slashdot, so I don't want to go into long-winded detail. Suffice it to say that I know people who: 1) Live in places with only one broadband ISP. They can't switch ISPs unless they want to go to dialup. 2) Have an ISP with a mailserver rewrites all outbound mail so that [EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes [EMAIL PROTECTED] . This is not satisfactory for all applications. It's not so cut and dry as some people would have you believe. -- Kirk Strauser pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
Christoph Simon writes: I'm not a lawyer, so I can't offer you a legal definition of a monopoly, but ask Microsoft about their last big trial and that which still seem to be in process in the EU. Or wasn't that in the end about being a monopoly and taking unfair advantage of it? The latter. Having a monopoly is not illegal. Taking unfair advantage of it is. Here I've got a `provider' who provides nothing than privacy violating filters (causing absurd latencies) and tells me that he'll switch off my internet connection if I don't pay my monthly fee. I have only one provider accessible via a local phone number: he went into business first and no one has seen fit to go into competition with him in this rural area. You seem to feel that he should be punished for having a monopoly. Why? It's like some protection fee to the mafia. Is there something preventing you from going into competition with him? If so _that_ is what you should be complaining about. Would you think that in the US a judge would accept the unilateral modification of a consumer's contract (Telefônica and Terra did this here), making you pay the double for less? In some circumstances, yes. It depends on the details. If my provider was to decide to double his rates I would have no legal recourse (other than starting my own ISP, of course). Is there any company in the world which can do that without having the status of a monopoly? Not generally. To repeat: in the US having a monopoly is not, in itself, illegal. Consider copyrights and patents, for example. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:52:28 -0300, Christoph Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:01:04 -0500 John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christoph Simon writes: Living in a country where monopolies are ilegal... Which country might that be? I'm not a lawyer, so I can't offer you a legal definition of a monopoly, but ask Microsoft about their last big trial and that which still seem to be in process in the EU. Or wasn't that in the end about being a monopoly and taking unfair advantage of it? Here I've got a `provider' who provides nothing than privacy violating filters (causing absurd latencies) and tells me that he'll switch off my internet connection if I don't pay my monthly fee. It's like some protection fee to the mafia. Well, he's a contents provider, but I didn't ask for any of that Microsoft-only crap. Would you think that in the US a judge would accept the unilateral modification of a consumer's contract (Telefônica and Terra did this here), making you pay the double for less? Is there any company in the world which can do that without having the status of a monopoly? ..www.telenor.no ? It only has the copper... ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:19:42 -0500 John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The latter. Having a monopoly is not illegal. Taking unfair advantage of it is. It might not be illegal, but the method to reach/hold it might at least be questionably for a normal citizen. I have only one provider accessible via a local phone number: he went into business first and no one has seen fit to go into competition with him in this rural area. You seem to feel that he should be punished for having a monopoly. Why? I didn't say he should be punished, but that he shouldn't have the power to force me to pay for nothing (literally): I've got connectivity and IP from a company called Telefônica. I'm forced to subscribe the `services' of another company `Terra' which does nothing constructive: They filter my traffic, they force me to type regularly username and password. They do offer a few email accounts (which are unreliable and sold to marketing companies) and a frequently failing DNS service which I've replaced a long time ago with independent servers. I do not use anything from them. Why then do I have to pay? Is there something preventing you from going into competition with him? If so _that_ is what you should be complaining about. I can (try to) compete with someone doing something, but not for taking money without anything in exchange. Thieves can do that. In some circumstances, yes. It depends on the details. If my provider was to decide to double his rates I would have no legal recourse (other than starting my own ISP, of course). No motivating details. This company offered broadband connections without restrictions for a certain amount of money. A few months later, lots of restrictions where applied without asking any customer (we found out by surprise), at the same time a `new product' was presented having the same features as the original one, but with more than the double price. In the meanwhile, this second product also has restrictions, but price is going up continuously (in steps of two digit percentages). No more details than this. If your only local provider doubles price in a consumer product, what would happen in your area? Would he get support of the local authorities? -- Christoph Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ^X^C q quit :q ^C end x exit ZZ ^D ? help . -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:06:53 +0200 Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any company in the world which can do that without having the status of a monopoly? ..www.telenor.no ? It only has the copper... ;-) Ooops. World seems to be a worse place than I thought. -- Christoph Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ^X^C q quit :q ^C end x exit ZZ ^D ? help . -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
Christoph Simon writes: If your only local provider doubles price in a consumer product, what would happen in your area? Nothing in particular, in general. For example, there is only one drugstore in my village. The owner is entirely free to set his prices however he wishes. Same goes for my ISP. Would he get support of the local authorities? What do you mean by support? The restrictions on monopolies have to do with such things as using monopoly power to unfairly prevent entry of competitors or to unfairly extend a monopoly to other markets. Merely increasing prices is not illegal. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 05:23:48PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Nothing in particular, in general. For example, there is only one drugstore in my village. The owner is entirely free to set his prices however he wishes. Same goes for my ISP. I think the point is that in Brazil you can't start offering DSL service. The monopoly is sort of enforced by a regulating agency. (The original idea was not that, but this is what happens in practice) So, they do whatever they want with their prices, and nobody can get an alternative. J. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:23:48 -0500 John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christoph Simon writes: If your only local provider doubles price in a consumer product, what would happen in your area? Nothing in particular, in general. For example, there is only one drugstore in my village. The owner is entirely free to set his prices however he wishes. Same goes for my ISP. One thing is to double prices and expose them _before_ you pay, and another thing is to double prices you suddenly have to pay in disagreement with a former contract. Maybe you are a lawyer, but for my taste, these things stink like hell. Personally, I can't understand what is legal if two parties agree to a set of conditions, that one part can change these conditions arbitrarily, leaving the other with the choices of not getting any service or accepting the abuse. Would he get support of the local authorities? What do you mean by support? The restrictions on monopolies have to do with such things as using monopoly power to unfairly prevent entry of competitors or to unfairly extend a monopoly to other markets. Merely increasing prices is not illegal. Support? Well, this is if the government grants permission to a company to do what ever they want and/or a judge allowing things he wouldn't allow a smaller company. Let's see: You've got a contract with me, paying me 100 monetary units for a well defined service. A few months later, I tell you, that you get only 10% of that service, but if you want to have the full service, you can contract another product which costs 250 units. As you have no choice, you accept to pay 250. From then on, I'll reduce service from time to time raising the price significantly, and as time goes by, I'll change name and service in the near future. Maybe this is legal, but it stinks. I can't do that. Telefónica can. -- Christoph Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ^X^C q quit :q ^C end x exit ZZ ^D ? help . -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
Christoph Simon writes: One thing is to double prices and expose them _before_ you pay, and another thing is to double prices you suddenly have to pay in disagreement with a former contract. Maybe you are a lawyer, but for my taste, these things stink like hell. That's got nothing to do with the monopoly question. Personally, I can't understand what is legal if two parties agree to a set of conditions, that one part can change these conditions arbitrarily, leaving the other with the choices of not getting any service or accepting the abuse. Sounds like a contract dispute. Don't you have any civil courts? Maybe this is legal, but it stinks. I can't do that. Telefónica can. That's not monopoly. That's corruption. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
Jeronimo Pellegrini writes: I think the point is that in Brazil you can't start offering DSL service. The monopoly is sort of enforced by a regulating agency. And thus we have an example of the evils of regulation, not of the evils of monopoly. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 07:04:07PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Jeronimo Pellegrini writes: I think the point is that in Brazil you can't start offering DSL service. The monopoly is sort of enforced by a regulating agency. And thus we have an example of the evils of regulation, not of the evils of monopoly. Yes, yes... My point is dial-up lists block legitimate email; may be because of regulation, or whatever else. J. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Monday 22 September 2003 05:23, Christoph Simon wrote: On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:06:53 +0200 Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any company in the world which can do that without having the status of a monopoly? ..www.telenor.no ? It only has the copper... ;-) Ooops. World seems to be a worse place than I thought. Hello, In Australia, you would have a case based on 'a denial of natural justice' suit, which would need to be pursued through the supreme court. This is expensive, about $Au10,000.00/day all up, paying barristers, Q.C.s, etc. But if you can get a few of you together to share the expense, given that a similar situation exists there, this is how you set a legal precedent, which is quite often the basis for governmental regulation legislation. I would also check to see if there is a watchdog body that administers to commercial non conformity to existing legislation. Doing it by way of email might be a sweetly poetic touch. Regards, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
