Alan Cox wrote:
> > My server is in the tested/good list w/ orbs. Aren't you following your own advice
> > about properly setting up your MTA to allow good guys and stop bad guys in accord
> > with ORBS DNS?
> I get too much junk to care about it.
How are we supposed to properly contact maintainers and post bugs and solutions when
you're rejecting our mail?
You're part of the choir that lambasts people who blast ORBS for their policies, telling
people to set their MTA up correctly so they only get the -real- bad guys. Yet you turn
around and generically blacklist everyone in a guilty by remote association. Are you
going to continue supporting the generic blacklisting as one by one the lk developers
fall prey to the global ORBS reach?
Now the only way to reach you is via a list such as this which means this email which
could have and should have been private must go through a public channel.
It's rather a bother. On one hand you're staunchly supporting fair and equal practice
in code development and policy for lk, on the other hand, you're encouraging netblock
blacklisting even as the netblocks increase in size.
I've switched mail relaying four times now because of generic blacklisting by ORBS. Not
a single server I have switched has ever been guilty of open relaying and every single
one of them has been tested clean.
Let me ask you a question, and give it some thought as to the future. What do we the
innocent ORBS victims do next, particularly as our group grows?
On a side note, is there anyone/anyplace willing to allow relaying for my server? One
by one all the networks around here are falling under the ORBS netblock blacklist and
I'm not going to go through any more expense for myself, company, or LUG when we are
perfectly legitimate, tested clean as a whistle, and fully anti-spam compliant etc. We
shouldn't have to pay because someone else has decided our city has a con artist
My apologies, but the maintainers are going to have to pay more attention to indirect
emails via lists if your system uses ORBS.
Now to put the rant aside for the moment, changes in test8-preX are causing X to crash, I strongly suspect it is related to the switching back to console 1 always on APM resume. Was this change desired and intentional? If so, what is the reasoning behind it?
-- "The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:17 EST