jason kawaja <kawaja@ece.ufl.edu> wrote:
> > Maybe where you come from. The last ISP I was with listed all of its
> > customers addresses as "dynamic", even when they weren't, and the mail
> > server they provided lost ~10% of all mail and regularly introduced 4-5
> > *day* delivery delays to the rest.
> >
> > ISP-provided mail servers have gotten significantly worse over the last
> > ten years, to the point that simply saying "relay through your ISP's
> > smarthost" is no longer good advice.
>
> quality of service can degrade anywhere, it's up to the paying customer
> using the service to demand for better by perhaps switching providers.
That was in a city with exactly two available ISPs. The one I describe was
the more popular of the two. The other's mail servers are no better. If you
want a pipe from somewhere else, be prepared to trench better than a thousand
miles -- that might cost a few bucks.
> i refuse to "pick up the slack" for someone else's oversight by subjecting
> my users to an overwhelming amount of illegitimate (unwanted, etc) email.
> so for the record i am not offering advice however i am providing
> reasonable justification for my policy.
We have different definitions of "reasonable", then.
Facts that are not in dispute:
-not all dynamically-addressed hosts are sources of spam
-blocking mail based on the client being dynamically addressed blocks
legitimate mail
Charles
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <qmail@discworld.dyndns.org>
Read http://pyropus.ca/personal/writings/12-steps-to-qmail-list-bliss.html
My services include qmail consulting. See http://pyropus.ca/ for details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|