-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Hex Star" <hexstar@gmail.com> wrote:
This problem is easily solved by simply rejecting mail sent by servers on dynamic IP ranges...
Great. I guess we can all go home now. :-) - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFG/IHXq1pz9mNUZTMRAveDAKD+NuO5KxZBod2tFqh2C6Y97V/eDQCbBwiN wCTDJbwN4XSxd0xdxpq7pig= =dKvk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
On 9/28/07, Paul Ferguson <fergdawg@netzero.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
- -- "Hex Star" <hexstar@gmail.com> wrote:
This problem is easily solved by simply rejecting mail sent by servers on dynamic IP ranges...
Great. I guess we can all go home now. :-)
As long as we leave our wallets on our desks, no problem. :-) Summary of private responses: - Use LDAP - Use regexp and kill, kill, kill - Send me your data! All very good suggestions, but I thought of that and I have a variety of issues that limit me to my existing environment and do not allow fast and easy deployment of enhancements. One being I'm tied into a big OSS. Over this year I've expended significant amounts of time and energy on a problem that is created by people that are exploiting the Internet for profit which the vast majority is either fraud or identity theft oriented. Mail is a huge expense and sending it the way of usenet, outsourced en-masse using cheap and fast OEM interfaces and services, is the right thing to do. After researching the outsourced mail options, I found that the market is not mature or flexible enough yet. For example, we need the hook into automated systems, we need some level of control for front line support, and we need assurances that the provider will comply with the laws of where *the subscribing network* may be regulated. Not another country. If we get a subpoena or surveillance request, we need to be in the loop since we (and you all) are regulated. Google was my best hope and it was too bad they barely responded. The application suite for ISP's might have been ok if it were tuned up a little, or had more information and a real person running the program. They seem to have the right idea. Throw massive reasons at the problem, build user base, generate ad revenue to pay for it, and sell services to others i.e. anti-fraud and anti-phishing. Best, Martin
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
After researching the outsourced mail options, I found that the market is not mature or flexible enough yet. For example, we need the hook into automated systems, we need some level of control for front line support,
AT&T, Verizon, BT and so on have outsourced most of their subscriber email to other vendors (MSN and Yahoo) for years. I think they are the poster-children for companies with big, unwieldy OSSes. Likewise Critical Path has made a decent business supporting white label e-mail for many ISPs around the world. I've saw the duct tape from the inside and the outside. It ain't pretty, but they seem to make it work.
and we need assurances that the provider will comply with the laws of where *the subscribing network* may be regulated. Not another country. If we get a subpoena or surveillance request, we need to be in the loop since we (and you all) are regulated.
Of course, you could outsource your legal support to trusted third party vendors too :-) For only a small fee, they will solve all the problems.
Google was my best hope and it was too bad they barely responded. The application suite for ISP's might have been ok if it were tuned up a little, or had more information and a real person running the program. They seem to have the right idea. Throw massive reasons at the problem, build user base, generate ad revenue to pay for it, and sell services to others i.e. anti-fraud and anti-phishing.
Why should ISPs still pay to support subscriber e-mail either inhouse or outsourced, any more than paying to support USENET, Chat, FTP/HTTP Hosting, etc? Let subscribers choose whichever "free" or "fee-based" supplier, and wash your hands of both the support issues and the legal compliance issues.
Why should ISPs still pay to support subscriber e-mail either inhouse or outsourced, any more than paying to support USENET, Chat, FTP/HTTP Hosting, etc? Let subscribers choose whichever "free" or "fee-based" supplier, and wash your hands of both the support issues and the legal compliance issues.
For better or worse, whatever hoops you can make a customer have to jump through to leave may keep them your customer 'by force'. Its hard to change your email address and notify everyone on your address book and the sites you may have used it to sign up with. It may not be right, but it does seem to work. Also, having your domain on that customers email address is low cost advertising. sam
participants (4)
-
Martin Hannigan -
Paul Ferguson -
Sam Hayes Merritt, III -
Sean Donelan