On tir 15 dec 2009 00:32:31 CET, mouss wrote
Can all the guys who think 20 isn't much send me 10$ each? I promise to
write a song for you.
what if the snail postman did not get paid ?, how many snailmails
would not be sent ?, its wonder me that email is completely free of
charge in the fi
jdow a écrit :
> [snip]
>
> Per a discussion off the list the $20 is, as mentioned, pretty much a
> captcha and as the web site declares, an inoculation against "domain
> tasting" or 10 for a dollar .cn domains. The thousands of names
> registration isn't going to get through either ReturnPath or
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Why would anyone pay USD20 to register with emailreg.org instead of
publishing an SPF record for free?
To keep the pointy-haired managers happy.
Meow! :)
- C
On Dec 14, 2009, at 12:45 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Why would anyone pay USD20 to register with emailreg.org instead of
publishing an SPF record for free?
To keep the pointy-haired managers happy.
Bingo. Name calling aside, this is really the crux of
John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
>
>> Why would anyone pay USD20 to register with emailreg.org instead of
>> publishing an SPF record for free?
>
> To keep the pointy-haired managers happy.
>
I had the distinct feeling it was something like that.
/Per Jessen, Züri
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Why would anyone pay USD20 to register with emailreg.org instead of
publishing an SPF record for free?
To keep the pointy-haired managers happy.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #1
Marc Perkel wrote:
> Been using emailreg.org for several months now and it seems like a
> really good white list. Anyone else using it?
I'm not using it, but why would people list themselves there instead of
just publishing an SPF record? The approach is roughly the same:
>From emailreg.org:
"
From: "Sahil Tandon"
Sent: Saturday, 2009/December/12 15:23
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
From: "Marc Perkel"
Sent: Saturday, 2009/December/12 09:42
>
>Sahil Tandon wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Been using emailreg.org for several months now and it seems like a
>rea
snip
>
> But, as I said, I highly trust my well-placed contact who
> vouches for emailreg.org, so I'm satisfied.
>
snip
> --
> Rob McEwen
Rob,
:-)
um you did say it a coupla times.
once was enough though right?
:-)
we know who *you* are, yet if you are going to reference this "trusted
Rob McEwen wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I see no reason that everything has to be free. Ultimately we all have
to eat and we do something to make a living.
There are people in the world who are both ethical and financially
successful. So if someone is doing something right and maki
Marc Perkel wrote:
> I see no reason that everything has to be free. Ultimately we all have
> to eat and we do something to make a living.
>
> There are people in the world who are both ethical and financially
> successful. So if someone is doing something right and making a buck
> at it I don't ha
On 12/12/2009 4:52 PM, Bob O'Brien wrote:
I am "the whitelist guy" at Barracuda, so I work with them.
In my opinion, the $20 fee should be considered more like a CAPTCHA.
It's not simple "pay to play" either. Reports get investigated, and
delistings can happen. As I'm sure many of the volunteer
I would have to agree. The measures to ensure the integrity of the users
are thorough, and the price is minimal. Having gone through the process of
becoming a whitelisted sender (.edu), it made me feel confident endorsing
and using their white/blacklist.
And this is from someone who has been on
Rob McEwen wrote:
Bob O'Brien wrote:
But I have to say (and this is just my personal opinion) that all the
people shouting "conspiracy!" (even if joking about it) may have done
irreparable harm to the potential for corporations (not just Barracuda)
supporting this community in th
Bob O'Brien wrote:
> But I have to say (and this is just my personal opinion) that all the
> people shouting "conspiracy!" (even if joking about it) may have done
> irreparable harm to the potential for corporations (not just Barracuda)
> supporting this community in the future.
Bob,
Someone I ha
On 12/12/09 3:52 PM, "Bob O'Brien" wrote:
> I am "the whitelist guy" at Barracuda, so I work with them.
> In my opinion, the $20 fee should be considered more like a CAPTCHA.
> It's not simple "pay to play" either. Reports get investigated, and
> delistings can happen. As I'm sure many of the v
Bob O'Brien wrote:
I am "the whitelist guy" at Barracuda, so I work with them.
In my opinion, the $20 fee should be considered more like a CAPTCHA.
It's not simple "pay to play" either. Reports get investigated, and
delistings can happen. As I'm sure many of the volunteers here are
all too
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
> From: "Marc Perkel"
> Sent: Saturday, 2009/December/12 09:42
> >
> >Sahil Tandon wrote:
> >On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >
> > Been using emailreg.org for several months now and it seems like a
> >really good white list. Anyone else using it?
> >
> >
Michael Scheidell wrote:
But... you draw your own conclusions. the best thing about a
conspiracy theory is that there is little proof. if this is little
proof, then this would make a good conspiracy theory.
YMMV.
I have more evidence for you:
Barracuda Networks uses the emailreg.or
From: "Marc Perkel"
Sent: Saturday, 2009/December/12 09:42
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Been using emailreg.org for several months now and it seems like a
really good white list. Anyone else using it?
Not here. They charge a $20.00 administrative fee per regis
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
[HTML snipped]
I'm thrilled that it works well for you; my note was for posterity and
other readers who might benefit from knowing about the odd inconsistency
I mentioned in my initial reply.
--
Sahil Tandon
On 12/12/09 11:30 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Been using emailreg.org for several months now and it seems like a
really good white list. Anyone else using it?
Not here. They charge a $20.00 administrative fee per registered
domain, purportedly to
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Been using emailreg.org for several months now and it seems like a
really good white list. Anyone else using it?
Not here. They charge a $20.00 administrative fee per registered
domain, purportedly to preven
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Been using emailreg.org for several months now and it seems like a
> really good white list. Anyone else using it?
Not here. They charge a $20.00 administrative fee per registered
domain, purportedly to prevent "domain tasters". This is odd, given
their
24 matches
Mail list logo
