On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 12:38:03PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Tuesday, September 10, 2002 at 09:14:54 (-0500), Dave Sherohman wrote: ]
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 03:46:37PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > > I beg to differ.  List servers should be no more tolerant of accepting
> > > e-mail from known abusers, dial-up/DSL/cable addresses,
> > 
> > ITYM "ISP DHCP pools".  A static IP address is a static IP address,
> > regardless of whether the device's uplink is via T1, ISDN, DSL, cable,
> > modem, or carrier pigeon.  You can't assume that someone's a spammer
> > purely based on their physical connection to the network.
> 
> Did I say "static"?  I don't think I said anything about "static IP
> addresses."

Not explicitly, but some DSL/cable/dialup connections have static
addresses, which is why I suggested that you might want to amend your
statement from "dial-up/DSL/cable addresses" to "ISP DHCP pools".
A static address on a DSL line is just as trackable and just as
accountable as a static address on a T1.

> You can assume someone is not allowed to make outbound SMTP connections
> from certain classes of service.

And why is that?  Guess what - the address I'm sending this from belongs
to a domain (westling.com) which lives at the end of a DSL line on a block
of static IP addresses.  Why DSL?  Because a couple years back, we took
a look at the market, saw that it cost $X/month for 256k fractional T1
vs. $<X/month for 1M DSL, and opted to get more bandwidth for less money.

Now, would you care to explain why, given that we have the accountability
provided by static addresses, we have a properly registered domain, and
we run our own mail server (which accepts inbound SMTP and is not an open
relay), we should not be allowed to make outbound SMTP connections purely
on the basis of using DSL to establish our link to the outside world?

> If users want to get free support for free software then they'd damn
> well better be prepared to "get involved", even if only for a few days.

"Get involved"?  By being subjected to mail on topics they most likely
are uninterested in and may not even comprehend?  I don't see how that
does anyone any good.

> Your attitude is B.S.

You don't like it?  No skin off my teeth.  But I'm not the one saying that
I don't want to help anyone until after they've jumped through my hoops.