You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>


  • From:
  • Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:32:27 +0100

On Fri, Mar 19, 1999 at 02:01:29PM +0100, torben fjerdingstad wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Freek de Kruijf wrote:
> > > We don't need this facility if the ISP's block outgoing traffic to the
> > > smtp-port except from their own servers.

That's a dangerous development. Why do you need internet access anyway?
Just a proxy providing web, mail and ftp access ought to be enough for
everybody, right?

I don't agree... there are providers that work this way, and some percentage
of the customers generally leave those after a while to get "full internet

> Full internet access is nonsense anyway. Nobody has full internet
> access, even not the best cracker (I hope).

You know what is meant, please don't bicker about words. Only Bill Gates
himself has full internet access, ok? :) (that's a joke, dammit!)

> Users can send email anywhere so their access is not limited in
> that way. Users should not care about mail routing, just fill
> in the reciepient address and let the mail systems do the routing.

Most users are probably satisfied with a forced mail gateway, but some
users aren't. They might be for a variety of reasons, including:
 - security
 - privacy
 - custom protocol extensions

> Bang routing is bad manners and not supported much any more.

Aha, but you can't deny that it *is* still in use in some remote
outpost of the world. You want to deny your customers access to that?
> Forced use of an html cache is also ok, I think. But that's
> another matter.

I feel the same way about that. For most users it's OK, but a few won't
like it, for precisely the same reasons as above.

Jan-Pieter Cornet johnpc@localhost

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>