Madhu M Kurup [09/02/06 12:26 -0800]:
http://blog.unitedheroes.net/archives/p/2055/
This is weirdly enough an operational model that actually makes sense to
me in the email context. Whether this is the Penny Black[1] of our times
is easily up for grabs.
Making one of these models scale and b
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 22:38 -0800, Brian McNett wrote:
> The whole thing is rather little more than a tempest in a teapot.
>
As srs and you have noted, much ado about nothing. Here's another URL
that on similar lines:
http://blog.unitedheroes.net/archives/p/2055/
This is weirdly enough an ope
Brian McNett wrote:
>
> Back on the topic of EFF's stance on Goodmail, they've been out of step
> on email and spam issues ever since John Gilmore had his mailserver
> listed by MAPS as an open relay (It was, intentionally, and he refused
> to close it, which nearly cost him his hosting). While I'
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 06:18, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> >: host frodo.hserus.net[204.74.68.40] said: 550
> > Administrative Prohibition - See
> > http://spamblock.outblaze.com/67.188.111.216 (in reply to RCPT
What's Danny doing running an MTA on a Comcast IP (dynamically
allocated), when C
command)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Danny O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 00:57:26 -0800
Subject: Re: [silk] off on my "the EFF is clueless about spam issues"
hobby horse, again.
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:42:03
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 22:12, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >
> > And that is what the recent announcement is about. It concerns a means
> > of ensuring delivery of "transactional" mail. This is quite different
> > from "marketing" mail and it is not in the least controversial.
> >
>
> Bank sta
Original Message
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Yahoo, AOL, Goodmail and IP]
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 08:20:15 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: -ENOENT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Declan McCullagh , Cindy Cohn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
R
