Re: [exim] DynaStop - I like it!

Page principale
Supprimer ce message
Répondre à ce message
Auteur: Peter Bowyer
Date:  
À: Exim, Users
Sujet: Re: [exim] DynaStop - I like it!
On 03/11/06, Chris Lightfoot <chris@???> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:44:45PM +0000, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> > On 02/11/06, Chris Lightfoot <chris@???> wrote:
>    [...]
> > > no. I asked, is there any evidence for the implicit theory
> > > of things like Dynastop (i.e., that anybody with whom you
> > > might want to exchange mail is rich enough to pay for some
> > > sort of connectivity that doesn't appear in such a list).
> > > You offered none, but instead offered evidence for a
> > > completely different theory, presumably in the hope that
> > > dimmer readers would mistake it for what I asked for.
> > > (This is the bit of your message which I elided with
> > > [...], above, because it was not relevant to the
> > > discussion.)
>    [...]
> > My argument was that the 'implicit theory' you're trying to find
> > evidence for doesn't exist. The bit about '...afford a leased line'
> > was something you made up - nobody implied it.

>
> I believe that the people who advocate the use of these
> `black lists' and expend time and effort in composing them
> do so based on the claim that they are generally useful
> for some purpose or other. That must mean that there is a
> feature which separates mail which is sent through mail
> servers on IPs which appear on a `black list' from mail
> which is through mail servers which are not on a `black
> list'. This distinction obviously is not anything directly
> to do with spam, because the definition of whether a mail
> is spam or not is up to the recipient of the mail, and is
> independent of the IPs through which the mail passes (and
> the opinions of the people running any mail servers which
> might consult `black lists', much as -- as discussion here
> shows -- such administrators may believe otherwise).
>
> Therefore there must be, in the opinion of the people
> responsible, some feature of dynamic IPs which makes it
> impossible that mail originating from them is desirable to
> receive.


The part of my argument which you keep dismissing as irrelevant
answers this question in its entirety. Either listen to what you're
being told or go away.

Peter

--
Peter Bowyer
Email: peter@???