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 PR
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.
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 t
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)
D
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 wi
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 vil
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
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 m
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.
--
Chri
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
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 count
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
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 detai
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
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
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 PROTEC
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 is
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 ca
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 me
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. Unfor
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.a
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
`. `'`
`-
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 ran
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 fil
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
> > go
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 tak
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:
27 matches
Mail list logo