What are your thoughts on.....

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
. ..
Blocking the dialup/cable/dsl modem pooled IP's of another ISP are the
necessary evils of being an ISP.

No, they are not. Not when the ISPs being blocked are actively anti-spam.

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:OV06c.31312$Cb.514996@attbi_s51...
Because I have a very low tolerance of fools who insist on contradicting
what I say, even when they don't have a clue.

You know, after your last bit of frothing I looked at some of your
older usenet posts. You didn't used to be such a dick. What happened?

You quoted the explanation. I've always been this way. It's just it takes
a particular kind of idiot to set me off. I don't mind people disagreeing
with me, but I do mind people flat out calling me a liar when they don't
have the facts on their side.

Pete

Roger Halstead wrote:

They should black hole all
the ISPs sending out those bounce messages and the two worst are AOL
and Microsoft. (or they were)

Well, *now* the bounce messages carry the virus themselves and the senders are
forged. I must've gotten at least 30 "bounces" from various addresses purporting
to be the filter at "america. net" before I finally just added the entire domain
to my block list.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

Ben wrote:

As a senior in high school, i was able to get my private pilot's
license on dec 31, 2003. i love flying(what pilot doesn't, right?)
but i'm looking for a cheaper way to build hours then renting. i was
just playing with an idea, and i wanted your responses. Would an
airplane owner ever offer to share operating expenses for payment to
share a plane?

I certainly would not consider doing that with a minor who has no assetts or
money. It's my house they're going to take if you run up more damages than the
insurance will cover, and, in this neck of the woods, 1 million doesn't cover a
whole lot.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

Welllll.....

Here is what happened here...

One of our partners is 24, working as a flight instructor and
pushing airplanes around...

He has little "up front cash" to invest...

But he is a "partner" with enough shares on paper to qualify
as a "part owner" .

The other 3 of us could each write a cheque for the airplane,
but operating costs are another matter (as most reading this NG are
aware) ....So our airplane HAS TO FLY, and we need enough GOOD pilots
involved to fly the thing 200 + hrs./yr.

This guy is a GOOD pilot, (commercial IFR) and is a
responsible person. He is the one who washes the aircraft when he is
slack,( the other "instructors" would not stop so low). He
sweeps/washes the floor, helps ANYONE pushing/handling their plane,
and is far and away the the best employee at the FBO, even when no
one is looking.

One of our partners is 73 (retired Airline Capt, 31000+ hrs)
who, because of age, "needs a checkout" G every 6 months for the
insurance co.

Guess who does this?

And is weather comes in, he is close by to check the tiedowns
etc. on "his" airplane...

Works for us anyway...

A senior in high school? That would be a reach. Personally I
think you should be able to bring some "value" to the partnership. Our
young "partner" (IMHO) brings significant value to our project..

Lotsa bucks up front was not the most important issue with
us...

YMMV...

Dave




On 16 Mar 2004 17:12:58 -0800, (Ben) wrote:

Hello,
As a senior in high school, i was able to get my private pilot's
license on dec 31, 2003. i love flying(what pilot doesn't, right?)
but i'm looking for a cheaper way to build hours then renting. i was
just playing with an idea, and i wanted your responses. Would an
airplane owner ever offer to share operating expenses for payment to
share a plane? i know that i would have to be put on an insurance
plan, and i of course would pay for over half of the owners insurance
payement, plus whatever kind of costs for annuals and other
inspections. i know this is almost like co-ownership, but i don't
have the resources to be buying a plane. I'm not trying to ask for
something for nothing, as i've said, i'll pay for operating and
insurance costs, as agreed with an owner.

Well, how would you respond to this kind of proposal? let me know!

Thanks in advance,
Benjamin

If you want to email me....
#b#a#s#o#g#@#r#r#c#n#e#t#.#o#r#g#

Peter Duniho wrote:
Darrel Toepfer wrote...

Blocking the dialup/cable/dsl modem pooled IP's of another ISP are the
necessary evils of being an ISP.

No, they are not. Not when the ISPs being blocked are actively anti-spam.

There is no valid reason to allow dialup accounts to send SMTP direct.
Route the mail through the provider's server, works for millions of
other people...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
but I do mind people flat out calling me a liar when they don't
have the facts on their side.

I don't think anyone called you a liar. Idiot, perhaps, for attempting to
debate a topic that you, quite obviously, have no background in. But liar?
Naw.

--
Jim Fisher

In article , Peter Duniho wrote:
My ISP provides this kind of "service", and once I found out what was going
on, I told them to disable it for my email. I don't get any more spam than
I used to, and I don't have friends and family complaining that they can't
send me email anymore.

Lucky you. I get around 120 emails a day - on average, 118 are spam.

SpamAssassin 2.60 does a much better job at filtering the spam than I
can do by hand. Filtering by hand is prone to false positives too. I've
also employed the SBL-XBL (a realtime listing of compromised machines,
as well as those owned by the worst spam-gangs) to reject as much as the
obvious spam as possible.

There is no legitimate reason why a *.client.comcast.net address should
be emailing me - anyone on cable/DSL etc. should send their mail through
their ISP's smart host (which are NOT blocked by the SBL-XBL).
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
Lucky you. I get around 120 emails a day - on average, 118 are spam.

You only get two pieces of email a day that aren't spam? Why do you even
bother? You don't have any reason to even use the Internet for mail, as
near as I can tell. I don't see what your anomalous situation has to do
with this sub-thread though.

SpamAssassin 2.60 does a much better job at filtering the spam than I
can do by hand.

It sure does. Like I said, SpamAssassin already filters out everything that
might have been blocked by the black-hole list my ISP was using.

[...]
There is no legitimate reason why a *.client.comcast.net address should
be emailing me - anyone on cable/DSL etc. should send their mail through
their ISP's smart host (which are NOT blocked by the SBL-XBL).

You, like several other people, are not bothering to read what I wrote.

In only ONE instance is the blocked email coming from a friend's own mail
server. All of the other blocked email messages WERE sent through their
ISP's mail server and they ARE blocked by the black-hole list service.

I don't know why this is so hard for you guys to grasp. You keep claiming
that the service isn't doing what I say that it does do. I know what it
does, I spent a huge amount of time learning about it (when the bounces
first started happening, I didn't have any idea why), and I know for a fact
that it is blocking perfectly legitimate email for absolutely no good
reason.

The whole concept is paternalistic crap. It punishes ISPs, especially the
largest ones (since they have the most exposure), even if they are doing
their best to keep spam off of their networks, and causes no end of
headaches for legitimate users.

Spam filtering is well and good but any proper solution will NEVER EVER
block legitimate email. One single false positive is simply unacceptable.
It is better to accept more false negatives instead.

Pete

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:21:02 -0600, Darrel Toepfer
wrote:

Peter Duniho wrote:
Darrel Toepfer wrote...

Blocking the dialup/cable/dsl modem pooled IP's of another ISP are the
necessary evils of being an ISP.

No, they are not. Not when the ISPs being blocked are actively anti-spam.

There is no valid reason to allow dialup accounts to send SMTP direct.
Route the mail through the provider's server, works for millions of
other people...

I find it surprising that a dial-up would even bother trying to be
their own server except for strictly educational means. For that
matter, why would a cable user bother to do so when they can use the
provider and it's so much simpler.

I can think of no reason not to block mail from dynamic IP hosts.

Yet, I do know of one person who insists on using his own server and
mail server on cable. Never have figured out why.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com