On Tue, 5 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04.05.09 16:43, Charles Gregory wrote:
Strictly speaking, getting them to use it consistently and properly will
be MORE difficult,
more difficult than what? More difficult than discussing it here or more
difficult than implementing PSPF based on your sick setup and requirements?
Less difficult than getting people to respond rationally and intelligently
to what I actually posted rather than grabbing a sentence out of context
and using it to construct a glib insult.
I don't have a problem with being wrong. But if you think you're going to
'shout me down' with arrogant pronouncements like the above, well, good
luck with thtat...
Configuring the mail account in their MUA independently on their
internet connection is much easier than changing SMTP server every time
they connect to other network.
You know, at least the other posters have brought up port 587, which
offers a way around the standard port 25 block that stands in the way of
your 'easy' idea.
Send the notice two or more times. They will comply when they will start
getting failures and you'll be able it's because they didn't read and
follow multiple
Ah, I'll take a guess as to what *that* twisted syntax means. Firstly, it
means that you typed your message in a hurry, which reflects that you just
skimmed over my e-mail with equal speed, missing all the fine points. You
didn't really care to read my full reasoning for why I can't rely on
notices. We may be not-for-profit, but we still have to run on membership
revenues, and those revenues *drop* when people decide that "we have a
problem" and instead of phoning us, they think the solution is to go find
another ISP. I've had people phone me up to cancel their accounts because
their e-mails "didn't work for three weeks", when they had a glitch in
their anti-virus that was blocking pop. You would think that any reasoning
human would call us for *help*. No, they just presume *we* have a problem,
"wait" for us to fix it, then go find another provider.... Stupid. And
yes, sometimes I think we'd be better off without those clients, but times
are tight, and no we would *not* be better off. So we avoid situations
where users who don't read notices have any changes that can interrupt
their service. So we have to have an OPT-IN mechanism that at the least
will get the 'PSPF' working for the people smart enough to use it.
(nod) That would be one of the technical hurdles of this. Each ISP would
need a published PSPF Server record identifying all *possible* outbound
mail servers that any connected client could use, and then someone
setting up their PSPF would use a 'lookup' function to get that
information, and paste it into the opt-in form for the host serving their
domain name.
<irony>
Now this is really much easier than configure mail user agents properly.
</irony>
If there was even the faintest chance that your suggestion achieved all
(or most of) the objectives outlined in my proposal, I might accept your
stupid attempt at sarcasm as a clever argument. But you haven't come close
to addressing the 'replacement for SMTP callback' aspect of the
discussion...
Me, I posed a question. I *don't* have all the facts. Thank you, but I
want help from people who know MORE than me. There are lots of them on
here, and they are really helpful. Thanks to them, I've disabled my SMTP
callbacks. Good reasoned argument always wins. Try it sometime.
You forgot to mention the users will change their PSPF every time they
start/stop using other connection, at home, work, coffee shop, weekend
house etc etc etc.
<my turn at sarcasm>
Oh.... My.... Deity..... I hadn't thought of that! Why, this would be an
incredibly difficult hurdle to overcome!
<end sarcasm>
I'm a programmer. I make a living turning incredibly difficult things into
simple push-one-button solutions. I can make it easy for my users. What I
can't do is make it load-efficient on the internet. So THAT is what is up
for discussion here.
Please, stop the PSPF discussions and go implement something that will
work without changing the whole internet
LOL! Please stop discussing ideas? I would hestitate to offend any
particular relgion by citing a specific example, but WOW do you ever sound
like the worst religious leaders telling their followers what they can
believe or say or do.....
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!" - Adolf Hitler
I take it back. You *have* mastered irony.
- Charles
