Email rejected by gcc list

Bruce Korb bkorb@sco.COM
Mon Feb 7 16:59:00 GMT 2000


Mike Stump wrote:
> 
> No, their aggravation is good.  It causes action to be taken.

Were that true, then it would not be aggravating.  :-)
The aggravation comes from not getting action.

> Get a clueful ISP.

That assumes that one's employer takes into consideration
"cluefulness" of their ISP vendor.  That is generally *not*
the case.  That meant I was constrained to monitoring GCC
traffic over my 28.8 connection at home, where I _do_ have
a voice with my ISP.  Frankly, I prefer to delete extraneous
spam over T-1's than have cleaned up email at 28.8.  (I actually
use a 58 KB service, but there are line problems.)

> orbs mail machines, if they want.  If you want them to have one, ask
> for one.  I can tell them the steps necessary to do this, if they
> cannot figure it out from the documented orbs behavior.

SCO does this.  Try convincing Netcom and PSI Net.
All I ever got was automated replies.  They cater
to the MIS folks, not the users.  MIS worries more
about business issues (like roaming support for sales
staff, integrated VPN, etc.).


Bottom line:  your ORBS policy silences the voices
of those stuck with business oriented MIS staff.
I consider this more of a problem than the "problem"
people have with 3 extra spams per day.  If that.

(How about adding an exceptions list, a la the excepted
IP addresses within blacklisted blocks?  E.G.  mumble@netcom.com
is a known address, so their email gets through?)


More information about the Gcc mailing list