>>Yes, in this vigilante-justice world, sysops can and do refuse email from
>>various sources for almost any [and often no] reason.
>Ah... excuse me... Examples please?
>If you have some evidence to support your claim that sysadmins refuse mail
>from people for no reason, please present it.
>I realize that in the ``whimp-justice'' world, no spammer or spam source
>ever gets denied the ability to spam, and spam again, and again, and again,
>but out here in the real world, some of us _do_ know where the spam is
>coming from, _and_ which ISPs (and freebie mail serrvices) are supporting
>it and/or condoning it.
We were put on the Paul Vixie black list system and had all traffic from
our mailservers blocked into the US by a US ISP that used the list as a
reference. This had a major effect on our service, as the ISP was the
supplier into the US for our ISP.
What was our crime? Someone used one of our client addresses as a _return_
address on a piece of spam.
Note, they didn't use our mail servers to send or receive any mail - they
placed an email address in the return field.
This had the effect of cutting of thousands of clients from effective
access to the Web.
In essence, the story was: you agree to our definition of acceptable
behaviour in the world or we will destroy your business.
I felt we had no choice but to accept. However, I generally find
fundamentalism of any stripe to be unpleasant, and I don't see that I
should be forced to accept the arbitary standards of any private individual.
Of course, you will say that any ISP is entitled to impose any rules it
wants - and in the main you would be right. But, these rules are arbitary
and we are now adhereing to them out of fear rather than belief.
Founder & CEO, NetNames International
Ivan Pope ivan @
NETNAMES * The INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY
http://www.netnames.com UK Freephone 0800 269049
180-182 Tottenham Court Road London W1P 9LE UK
+44 171 291 3900 +44 171 291 3939 Fax
It's not about building a better mousetrap, it's about redefining the mouse.