[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> That's strange because you just finished describing how
> SOME companies are already engaging in email peering on
> a piecemeal basis. And how these companies ARE finding
> this to be beneficial in reducing costs. So please explain
> why my suggestion about widespread e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> That is something that businesses will pay for.
>
> But first, ISPs have to put their hands up and take
> collective responsibility for Internet email as a service
> that has value and not just as some kind of loss leader
> for Internet access services.
Many large orga
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
> Passing laws and putting on filters don't work. Depending on each mail
> server admin to do the right thing doesn't work. We need to find
> something else that will.
Define "doesn't work"?
Yes there is still spam - but the laws are in all cas
> Anytime anyone sends a mail to my server, I want to be paid 2 cents.
And then, no one will want to send _you_ email. Spam or otherwise.
> You would also want to be able to accept mail from certain senders for
> free.
Which I guess is how you would avoid killing off legitimate mass mailing (l
> Are train derailments common events that don't get much press coverage (or
> maybe that don't get much coverage unless it's a passenger train), or was
> this an especially bad week?
Certainly fiber along rail right of ways was easy to install - and as a result,
there's a lot of it, but trains
