-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Hector,
On 12 Apr 2008 at 10:05, Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com> said:
I guess there is also some selfishness here because as with most things, if
it doesn't happen to you, if you don't feel it, most people who careless
about it.
I'll never forget what I suffered when using a dynamic IP address on a
cable modem connection. Now that I've moved to a static IP address on a
DSL provider which allows changing of Reverse DNS mappings (using CNAMEs -
not optimal, but better than nothing!), and am suffering almost zero
delivery issues, my promise has been never to depend on checks that would
put to suffering any others who may be less fortunate and/or who try to
use their connections to best advantage. I pay less than I used to when
on that cable connection, but it required me to change connection
technology to DSL of sufficiently reliable class (business) and telecoms
provider.
The RDNS check is basically pointless without the paranoia (RDNS<->A)
check, which generates too many false positives to be useful. The Dynamic
IP check is punishing people with guts and increasing the class divide
between consumers and businesses needlessly.
As a blind person, I find that the other thing that doesn't bother the
majority of people that does bother me is graphical CAPTCHAs. Most people
find them a nuisance; I find them a positive frustration. Given that
these too are almost completely pointless, I won't inflict them upon
others.
Cheers,
Sabahattin
- --
Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail<at>sabahattin<dash>gucukoglu<dot>com>
Address harvesters, snag this: feedme(_at_)yamta(_dot_)org
Phone: +44 20 88008915
Mobile: +44 7986 053399
http://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8
Comment: QDPGP - http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBSAFDJiNEOmEWtR2TEQJefQCeNSfGKgEwokN97lc+sX6OL3nmmW4AnRh1
Ieu0QOVf2UF1K5IYLbnBf1ch
=W2ay
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----