On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:52:54 BST, Tony Finch said:
If a sender doesn't like their site's policies, they can get another ISP
or have a chat with their sysadmins or whatever.
This makes 3 assumptions:
1) That the sender is even able to recognize that the breakage is due to the
site policy.
There's no substitute for knowledge, including knowing when you need to find
someone who knows more about this than you do to help out.
2) That there exists a *realistic* alternative ISP (you're always free to
switch
to the *other* cable company for your broadband, right? ;)
Doesn't this in turn assume that your ISP is the only one who can provide you
mail service? I suppose it is possible that there are providers out there that
block everything but port 80 and do stateful inspection of port 80 traffic to
insure it it is really HTTP. But even then there are web-based alternatives...
I'm sorry, but I have a lot more sympathy for the many folks who have no access
to the Internet in any form (or to food, clean water, or satefy for that
matter) than I do for someone with a dainbramaged ISP. Workarounds are almost
always possible for the latter, even for unsophisticated users.
3) That the sysadmins have both sufficient clue and motivation to care
about your problems. Remember that you have to get past the Level 1 tech
support people, who probably don't have your problem on their script....
This at least I have some sympathy for - we've all had these phone calls - but
it doesn't rise to the level of making me think CSV is a bad idea that should
not be deployed.
Shutting down open relays forced a lot of people to change their email
practices. But does anyone still think keeping them open was viable?
Ned