At 8:20 PM -0700 2002/08/28, David Schwartz wrote:
> There are a few thousand people and more computers than you can shake a
> stick at located at Fort Meade for just this purpose.
I'm not worried about Fort Meade for something like this.
Moreover, this is not "widely available"
At 7:32 PM -0700 2002/08/27, Jim Hickstein wrote:
> Hear, hear! I run an email-only service provider
> (www.imap-partners.net), and we have to help certain users over
> the threshold at e.g. Earthlink by permitting them to reach us
> on another port. This is logically ridiculous, and bound
At 6:13 PM -0700 2002/08/27, David Schwartz wrote:
> I'm afraid the technology to rapidly sift through large volumes of
> information to search for specific areas of interest is widely available.
Really? Where? I'd like to know what they are and where.
>
At 7:37 PM -0400 2002/08/27, Dean Anderson wrote:
> You worked at AOL? This happens quite often. I've known of several admins
> who started reading email, checking terminal servers, and "disrupting"
> users who complained about the admins performance. One admin wrote a
> script that reset
At 12:16 PM +0200 2002/08/27, Bruce Campbell wrote:
> I understand the proposal to be based on the envelope sender, not the
> sender in the body. Hence, mailing lists work, because they are the
> envelope sender, not the person who submitted the mail to the mailing
> list.
Read my
At 11:19 AM -0600 2002/08/27, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> Because I want to send mail through my own SMTP server that speaks
> STARTTLS and uses certificates that are under my control.
That's a valid concern. Indeed, that's exactly the sort of thing
I will want to be doing in the near
At 12:58 PM +0100 2002/08/27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It might be possible to make filters that don't need to be updated that
> often if
> you apply AI techniques to recognizing SPAM. For instance, check out this
> new approach:
> http://www.paulgraham.com/paulgraham/spam.html
At 7:19 PM -0700 2002/08/26, David Schwartz wrote:
> Every ISP I have ever worked for and every ISP I have ever used has
> eventually been convinced by me to come around to this policy. Do whatever
> you want by default, but let trusted/clueful people opt out of it and just
> get their
At 12:14 PM +1000 2002/08/27, Martin wrote:
> but surely an MTA derives it's usefulness by running on port 25. i don't
> remember reading about where in the DNS MX RR you could specify what port
> the MTA would be listening on...
Proper support of SRV records would allow you to put t
At 7:02 PM -0400 2002/08/26, Scott Gifford wrote:
> The proposal suggests that you get all of the A records for all of the
> accepted names, then make sure that one of the A records matches the
> address that the connection came from. See sec. 2.3.
Right. And when they add a new ma
>> ISP's should actually block port 25 outgoing, or even better,
>> reroute/forward it to their own mail relay.
> Agreed.
why not do it to port 80 as well? what the hell, why not do it to all
ports? who the hell needs an internet anyway, let's all have a telco
walled garden.
can we get b
At 9:12 PM +0200 2002/08/26, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> ISP's should actually block port 25 outgoing, or even better,
> reroute/forward it to their own mail relay.
Agreed.
> This will force people to use their upstreams email address though when
> sending email outbound.
Yup.
12 matches
Mail list logo
