[CentOS] Actual complaining: nixspam

[m.roth at 5-cent.us]

John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 04:04:49PM -0400, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>>
>> b) What assurance do I have that whoever I chose won't wind up with the
>> same problem, given that, as I mentioned, a dozen years ago, they were
>> blocking a good part of the city of Chicago?
>
> Umm, that's actually hardly true considering the number of providers in
> Chicago.
>
Around the turn of the decade, there were *NOT*. For example, my nice ISP
got eaten by 21st Century, which got eaten by rcn, which I think was
either a branch, or became part of Time-Warner, and that's just my
experience. And for other than dial-up, there WERE NO OTHER cable/Internet
providers in large swaths of the city.
<snip>
> Hell Mark... _I_ will be happy to relay outbound for you, no charge, for
> as long as you want it.

That was unexpected, and thank you. I may take you up on that.

At least this time, I could remove myself, as opposed to the times when
they complain that "too many spams", and I have to wait for hostmonster to
get them off their case.
>
> Should things be the way they are?  No, probably not.  Should you be
> ignored by TPTB with regards to this?  No, probably not.  Is anything
> likely to change?  No, likely not.  It is what it is, for better or
> worse.

As I said, ideal case is for IX to actually respond, and change their
methods; second best would be for the listowner to choose some other
method of blocking spam - I dunno, a captcha when signing up for the list?
>
> The offer is legit.  If you want to take me up on it and we can get this
> fixed for you, awesome.  If not, I urge you to take matters into your
> own hands and implement a solution to address this recurring problem.

Again, thank you. You're a scholar... <g>

        mark, not a gentleman, neither by breeding, nor Act of Congress