[mailed and posted]
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Roger Burton West wrote:
> I have a reason to want them accepted: I am more capable of running a
> mailhost than my ISP. Because I'm running a lower-volume system, I can
> get mail out in a few seconds, rather than having to wait half an
> hour; and when my DNS breaks, I know about it, rather than just
> bouncing every message for more than a day before someone can be
> bothered to fix it.
>
> And my host, unlike those of quite a few ISPs, doesn't get listed in
> RBL even when it's a static address.
>
> "Change ISPs"? That's been my experience with several in the UK -
> large mailhosts just don't seem to work very well.
Change ISPs again, then. At least one major UK ISP actually hijacks
direct out-going port 25 connections. That is behaviour I commend.
I wish that more ISPs would actually work on abuse prevention.
With that ISP, which I used since near its inception until I left the UK,
I have never had any mail transport problems or delays, execpt for my
first out-going test message which was forged with an envelope of my work
address. Appearently, after that was frozen for a few hours and
inspected, I somehow was whitelisted and after that had no problems at
all. (There was a few day period when mail access was out.)
There was also a time when I sent out an annoucement with about 70
recipients and a "dummy: ;" to line (and a forged envelope from). The
first time I did that it was delayed for a bit. But again, after that I
was able to do that all I wanted.
I have also advocated the use of RBL/DUL and will continue to do so.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg
I have recently moved, see
http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/contact.html
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
