On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
william(at)elan.net wrote:
You need to have protocol to map it from. HTTP is not a protocol but
type of transport of initial email submission data to a submission
server.
Really?!
Yes. Since we're talking text messaging protocols (i.e
william(at)elan.net wrote:
You need to have protocol to map it from. HTTP is not a protocol but
^
type of transport of initial email submission data to a submission
server.
Really?!
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur acti
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
Far better to use a Received: header stating HTTP in the "with"
protocol field. (And the IANA registry should be updated to include
that as one of the standard value
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
> >
> > Far better to use a Received: header stating HTTP in the "with"
> > protocol field. (And the IANA registry should be updated to include
> > that as one of the standard values.)
>
> That suggestion is l
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Fergie wrote:
Ack: X-Originating-From should be mandatory.
Far better to use a Received: header stating HTTP in the "with" protocol
field. (And the IANA registry should be updated to include that as one of
the standard values.)
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Fergie wrote:
> Ack: X-Originating-From should be mandatory.
Far better to use a Received: header stating HTTP in the "with" protocol
field. (And the IANA registry should be updated to include that as one of
the standard values.)
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> h
On 9/6/06, Stephen Sprunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Telling half my family members they have to go get Gmail so they can
email the other half of my family members is ridiculous. Too bad
Comcast has a monopoly (or, where a duopoly, the competition is just as
incompetent) so they have no incenti
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, S. Ryan wrote:
>
>
> Christopher L. Morrow wroteth on 9/6/2006 5:11 PM:
> > something truly wrong? So escalating every problem that seems even half
> > baked isn't an option?
>
> You're probably right. However, if someone called my place of
> employment (a small local ISP) an
Christopher L. Morrow wroteth on 9/6/2006 5:11 PM:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Because Comcast's tools are broken and when other mail admins or even
their own customers call them on it, they're not even competent enough
to understand the complaint and refuse to escalate?
I ha
On Sep 6, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Because Comcast's tools are broken and when other mail admins or even
their own customers call them on it, they're not even competent
enough
to understand the complaint and refuse to escalat
Thus spake "Sean Donelan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But there is no requirement to use your ISP's mail server or any other
application from your ISP. Likewise there is no requirement for a ISP
to offer any E-mail or Usenet, or FTP, or legal music downloads, or
any
other application to its customers
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Perhaps some of the comcast folks reading might take a better/harder look
at their customer service tickets and do a 'better' job (note I'm not even
half of a comcast customer so I'm not sure that there even IS a
problem...) on this issue?
I am
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> Perhaps some of the comcast folks reading might take a better/harder look
> at their customer service tickets and do a 'better' job (note I'm not even
> half of a comcast customer so I'm not sure that there even IS a
> problem...) on this issue?
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> Because Comcast's tools are broken and when other mail admins or even
> their own customers call them on it, they're not even competent enough
> to understand the complaint and refuse to escalate?
>
It doesn't matter even if you are escalated. One of our (and their)
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> Because Comcast's tools are broken and when other mail admins or even
> their own customers call them on it, they're not even competent enough
> to understand the complaint and refuse to escalate?
I hate to say this, and get involved in the melee, bu
Thus spake "Sean Donelan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Tony Li wrote:
I've taken the rather extreme approach of bouncing everything through
Gmail first. Let's see them block Google. ;-)
Patient: Doctor, Doctor, It hurts when I do this.
Doctor: Don't do that.
Not very helpful a
At 03:24 PM 9/6/2006, you wrote:
Once upon a time, Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You don't have to exchange E-mail with either Google, Comcast or any other
> Mail Service Provider if you don't want to.
Just wait until "Net Neutrality" laws require you to.
...or with spammers! That'
Once upon a time, Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You don't have to exchange E-mail with either Google, Comcast or any other
> Mail Service Provider if you don't want to.
Just wait until "Net Neutrality" laws require you to.
--
Chris Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Systems and Network Admini
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Fergie wrote:
Ack: X-Originating-From should be mandatory.
Mandatory and the Internet? Heck even our standards are called
"requests."
You don't have to exchange E-mail with either Google, Comcast or any other
Mail Service Provider if you don't want to. You don't even
Ack: X-Originating-From should be mandatory.
$.02,
- ferg
-- David Ulevitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 1, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
> I never understood why Gmail didn't put an X-Originating-From
> header in mail sent out by web users.
Seconded! It may not be a r
On Sep 1, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
I never understood why Gmail didn't put an X-Originating-From
header in mail sent out by web users.
Seconded! It may not be a requirement but the omission is certainly
inconsistent with most web-based email services, particularly a
po
I never understood why Gmail didn't put an X-Originating-From header in mail sent out by web users.-brandonOn 9/1/06, Steven Champeon <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:on Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 11:45:53AM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
> For example, Gmail doesn't include the originating IP address in its> emai
on Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 11:45:53AM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
> For example, Gmail doesn't include the originating IP address in its
> email which makes it even more difficult for spam filters to judge its
> reputation.
You misspelled "makes it a veritable haven for 419 scammers".
--
hesketh.co
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Tony Li wrote:
I've taken the rather extreme approach of bouncing everything through
Gmail first. Let's see them block Google. ;-)
Patient: Doctor, Doctor, It hurts when I do this.
Doctor: Don't do that.
There are lots of Mail Service Providers. AOL, Comcast, Gmail, Ya
> > Has anyone ever managed to open a dialogue with symantec
> (or comcast)
> > about that fscked up proprietary RBL they are using?
> >
> > We're on the verge of just giving up on comcast
>
> I know Sender Verification Callback has its issues, but maybe it
> would make sense to only accept
Mark Jeftovic wrote:
Has anyone ever managed to open a dialogue with symantec (or comcast)
about that fscked up proprietary RBL they are using?
We're on the verge of just giving up on comcast
I know Sender Verification Callback has its issues, but maybe it
would make sense to only accept em
Has comcast ever responded to a ping on this list?
Has anyone ever managed to open a dialogue with symantec (or comcast)
about that fscked up proprietary RBL they are using?
We're on the verge of just giving up on comcast and telling our
customers to forward their email someplace else (a lo
27 matches
Mail list logo
