Re: Notice about moderation of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Pedt
2 Dec 2009, Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wibbled
>In article <hev2n8$9ca$1...@news.albasani.net>, <c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote:
>>There should be NO filtering of either the moderation address or the
>>moderator contact address.
>
> I assume you'll be RFDing the removal of PBL (and any other)
>filtering from usenet.org.uk addresses then?
>
Wouldn't need an RFD, just a bit of twiddling. Having seen Charles'
posts elsewhere and the replies I suspect it might already have been
done for those who insist on using direct-to-MX from Dynamic IP instead
of going through their ISP.
--
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>
Dave J.
2009 00:08:34 +0000, in uk.net.news.config, 'Pedt' wrote:
>In message <w6D*ff...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 01:38:30 on Wed,
>2 Dec 2009, Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wibbled
>>In article <hev2n8$9ca$1...@news.albasani.net>, <c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote:
>>>There should be NO filtering of either the moderation address or the
>>>moderator contact address.
>>
>> I assume you'll be RFDing the removal of PBL (and any other)
>>filtering from usenet.org.uk addresses then?
>>
>Wouldn't need an RFD, just a bit of twiddling. Having seen Charles'
>posts elsewhere and the replies I suspect it might already have been
>done for those who insist on using direct-to-MX from Dynamic IP instead
>of going through their ISP.
'Strewth! I thought I was a die-hard for what I call intelligent email
transfer and even I gave up a couple of years back. I can't believe
there's a significant number still at it.
I've always believed having several servers between source and recipient
is a pointless waste of resources. On a constantly connected machine the
only real reason for a remote pop/smtp account *should* be fallback.
For a while I even ran a little (read toy) SMTP/POP / dynamic URL
combination here just for the sake of complete independence.
However, as I say, the practicality got the better of me at least two
years ago; too many places were resorting to some blacklist or other
instead of a spam filter and too many blacklists included my IP range. I
suppose I could still choose to receive that way, but there seems no point
having already lost half the battle.
Blacklists strike me as stupid too. Judging by comparison between
different accounts with different policies, proper spam filtration seems
probably *more* effective than accepting email only via 'official'
servers.
Dave J.
Pedt
2009, Dave J. <req...@freeuk.com> wibbled
>However, as I say, the practicality got the better of me at least two
>years ago; too many places were resorting to some blacklist or other
>instead of a spam filter and too many blacklists included my IP range. I
>suppose I could still choose to receive that way, but there seems no point
>having already lost half the battle.
I receive by SMTP (but not Demon or fairfieldtowers[1] email at the
moment) and have backup MX for all my domains bar one and about ~50%
of my outgoing email I punt through Demon's smarthost.
[1] This will change back when I get round to putting back the MX
records I removed before the start of the urcm vote.
--
Pedt
I used to be Unique, now I'm just Antique
Dave J.
2009 06:30:11 +0000, in uk.net.news.config, 'Pedt' wrote:
>In message <hfhom4$9uo$1...@news.datemas.de>, at 02:18:46 on Mon, 7 Dec
>2009, Dave J. <req...@freeuk.com> wibbled
>
>>However, as I say, the practicality got the better of me at least two
>>years ago; too many places were resorting to some blacklist or other
>>instead of a spam filter and too many blacklists included my IP range. I
>>suppose I could still choose to receive that way, but there seems no point
>>having already lost half the battle.
>
>I receive by SMTP (but not Demon or fairfieldtowers[1] email at the
>moment) and have backup MX for all my domains bar one and about ~50%
>of my outgoing email I punt through Demon's smarthost.
You mean, surely, just that the transfer from your receiving host (target
of your mx) to your client is by SMTP? Not direct delivery from sender to
your domestic machine?
It's the latter that I used to play with. It worked quite well for a
while, I used a freedns.afraid.org record, with a web-page to update the
IP and kept the MX pointing to my home box. My local SMTP sever also
worked as a relay that passed messages from my machine straight to the
target POP/SMTP.
It was the latter that meant the system wasn't viable, everywhere seemed
to think that IP blacklists were preferable to intelligent filtration
(Wrongly IMHO), so I could no longer talk to them. Shame as it meant only
one external machine was ever involved.
In these days of always on connections I believe it should be straight
from source to destination with no relaying or external storage being
required. The email protocols perfectly fit that setup. To the extent that
(again in my not so humble opinion) the perfect email client should be a
server in its own right, and directly send/receive SMTP. There's even the
inbuilt facility for auto passage to a secondary host as a fallback.
Why bother with all the stupid clutter, the half dozen external machines
that seem to be currently involved? That setup's surely more suited to the
days of mainframes and teletype terminals.
Dave J.
--
Thinkings for Solstice time.. How much do you care?
http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k4CYrpjx2p6pdEIc8Z?autoPlay=1
Music that goes with the thinkings. Think along..
http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x5hjmb?autoPlay=1
Pedt
>In MsgID<Q5Sl$UqzDK...@fishcake.eternal-september.org> on Mon, 7 Dec
>2009 06:30:11 +0000, in uk.net.news.config, 'Pedt' wrote:
>
>>In message <hfhom4$9uo$1...@news.datemas.de>, at 02:18:46 on Mon, 7 Dec
>>2009, Dave J. <req...@freeuk.com> wibbled
>>
>>>However, as I say, the practicality got the better of me at least two
>>>years ago; too many places were resorting to some blacklist or other
>>>instead of a spam filter and too many blacklists included my IP range. I
>>>suppose I could still choose to receive that way, but there seems no point
>>>having already lost half the battle.
>>
>>I receive by SMTP (but not Demon or fairfieldtowers[1] email at the
>>moment) and have backup MX for all my domains bar one and about ~50%
>>of my outgoing email I punt through Demon's smarthost.
>
>You mean, surely, just that the transfer from your receiving host (target
>of your mx) to your client is by SMTP? Not direct delivery from sender to
>your domestic machine?
Receiving host is on my LAN for both primary and quaternary MX. Most
senders use their ISP Smarthost but nothing to stop someone using their
own server sending here Direct-to-primary-MX (well, not unless my line
is down or the mail server has thrown a wobbly). Secondary and tertiary
forward to POP3 boxes but get little used IME.
The box-on-the-lan, depending on recipient, either sends it to Turnpike
on the box I'm typing from via SMTP or deals with it locally.
My LAN/WLAN is hardly a secret http://www.pedt.demon.co.uk/pedt-lan.gif
>
>It's the latter that I used to play with. It worked quite well for a
>while, I used a freedns.afraid.org record, with a web-page to update the
>IP and kept the MX pointing to my home box.
I have static IP so don't need to keep updating MX records.
>My local SMTP sever also
>worked as a relay that passed messages from my machine straight to the
>target POP/SMTP.
>
>It was the latter that meant the system wasn't viable, everywhere seemed
>to think that IP blacklists were preferable to intelligent filtration
>(Wrongly IMHO), so I could no longer talk to them. Shame as it meant only
>one external machine was ever involved.
This is why ~50% of my outgoing goes through the Demon Smarthost -
filtered as to Smarthost v Direct-to-MX based on Sender: first for
Smarthost then anything passing that is checked locally against
recipient domain and punted out accordingly.
>
>In these days of always on connections I believe it should be straight
>from source to destination with no relaying or external storage being
>required.
I know a lot of people who shut their computer down when not actively
using it, TAAW those who shut the router down if they are using their
computer but don't want to access the Internet themselves.
Always on doesn't mean always something to connect to.
Dave J.
16:27:08 +0000, in uk.net.news.config, 'Tony' wrote:
>In uk.net.news.config, Dave J. <req...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>Why bother with all the stupid clutter, the half dozen external machines
>>that seem to be currently involved? That setup's surely more suited to the
>>days of mainframes and teletype terminals.
>
>Get a non-dynamic IP address and you'll be able to do just that. Whether
>you get that and use it home or use a server somewhere (or virtual server)
>is your choice.
From what I've read, some ranges of supposedly non dynamic IPs end up on
blocklists anyhow. Also, I'm too tight fisted to fork out on renting one.
Dave J.
Tony
That's fine. But you should stop whinging since there's a cheap easy
solution to your problem.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Steve Firth
> From what I've read, some ranges of supposedly non dynamic IPs end up on
> blocklists anyhow. Also, I'm too tight fisted to fork out on renting one.
Errm, even the pikey useless ISP I use permits users to make their
Dynamic IP "static" by changing it to a reserved lease, free of charge.
Surely checking that static IP is available is one of the things
everyone sensible does before choosing an ISP?
Dave J.
+0000, in uk.net.news.config, 'Tony' wrote:
>>
>> From what I've read, some ranges of supposedly non dynamic IPs end up on
>> blocklists anyhow. Also, I'm too tight fisted to fork out on renting one.
>
>That's fine. But you should stop whinging since there's a cheap easy
>solution to your problem.
True. Just bugs me that from my POV there seems no real need for the
problem in the first place. You are however quite right in there being an
easy and obvious fix.
Dave J.
Dave J.
Depends how tight fisted you are (or need to be) and therefore how highly
you price the availability of such. My priorities are reasonable speed,
lack of impingment of data cap and good reliability. The connection I use
provides all those at a minimal cost. Sadly, useful added extras, although
certainly nice, would also double the price.
Dave J.