Re: NDNs considered harmful

ietf-smtp

Re: NDNs considered harmful

2010-08-12 12:11:32



On Aug 12, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Paul Smith wrote:

(I'm not asking for a solution really - just saying that the 'NDN' issue 
isn't that easy - if an upstream ISP blocks outgoing port 25 (blocking 
sending using MX routing), and then blocks all outgoing mail because of 
'spam' (NDNs) then you have no choice but to not send NDNs).


... or change upstream ISPs to one with a clue. :-)

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: NDNs considered harmful, (continued) Re: NDNs considered harmful, Peter J. Holzer Re: NDNs considered harmful, Hector Santos RE: NDNs considered harmful, John R Levine Re: NDNs considered harmful, Derek J. Balling Re: NDNs considered harmful, Hector Santos Re: NDNs considered harmful, ned+ietf-smtp Re: NDNs considered harmful, Hector Santos Re: NDNs considered harmful, Paul Smith Re: NDNs considered harmful, John R Levine Re: NDNs considered harmful, Paul Smith Re: NDNs considered harmful, Derek J. Balling <= Re: NDNs considered harmful, Paul Smith Re: NDNs considered harmful, Hector Santos Re: NDNs considered harmful, ned+ietf-smtp Re: NDNs considered harmful, Hector Santos Re: NDNs considered harmful, Hector Santos Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, John Levine Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, John C Klensin Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, David MacQuigg Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, Hector Santos

Previous by Date:	Re: Processing after the end of DATA, ned+ietf-smtp
Next by Date:	Re: NDNs considered harmful, Hector Santos
Previous by Thread:	Re: NDNs considered harmful, Paul Smith
Next by Thread:	Re: NDNs considered harmful, Paul Smith
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]