What are your thoughts on.....

[Ben]

Hello,
As a senior in high school, i was able to get my private pilot's
license on dec 31, 2003. i love flying(what pilot doesn't, right?)
but i'm looking for a cheaper way to build hours then renting. i was
just playing with an idea, and i wanted your responses. Would an
airplane owner ever offer to share operating expenses for payment to
share a plane? i know that i would have to be put on an insurance
plan, and i of course would pay for over half of the owners insurance
payement, plus whatever kind of costs for annuals and other
inspections. i know this is almost like co-ownership, but i don't
have the resources to be buying a plane. I'm not trying to ask for
something for nothing, as i've said, i'll pay for operating and
insurance costs, as agreed with an owner.

Well, how would you respond to this kind of proposal? let me know!

Thanks in advance,
Benjamin

If you want to email me....
#b#a#s#o#g#@#r#r#c#n#e#t#.#o#r#g#

[Peter Gottlieb]

I tried to email you but your email system rejected my address:

Recipient address:
Reason: Server rejected MAIL FROM address.
Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.0.0 porn spamming network
Remote system: dns;mail.rrcnet.org
(TCP|167.206.5.72|57474|209.105.74.131|25) (rrc2.rrcnet.org ESMTP Hello from
rrcnet; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:51:13 -0600)


My domain is optonline.net, which is a major cable internet ISP. If you
block optonline.net then you stop email from millions of legitimate
addresses.

Good luck.


"Ben" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello,
> As a senior in high school, i was able to get my private pilot's
> license on dec 31, 2003. i love flying(what pilot doesn't, right?)
> but i'm looking for a cheaper way to build hours then renting. i was
> just playing with an idea, and i wanted your responses. Would an
> airplane owner ever offer to share operating expenses for payment to
> share a plane? i know that i would have to be put on an insurance
> plan, and i of course would pay for over half of the owners insurance
> payement, plus whatever kind of costs for annuals and other
> inspections. i know this is almost like co-ownership, but i don't
> have the resources to be buying a plane. I'm not trying to ask for
> something for nothing, as i've said, i'll pay for operating and
> insurance costs, as agreed with an owner.
>
> Well, how would you respond to this kind of proposal? let me know!
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Benjamin
>
> If you want to email me....
> #b#a#s#o#g#@#r#r#c#n#e#t#.#o#r#g#

[Soon_To_Fly]

> My domain is optonline.net, which is a major cable internet ISP. If you
> block optonline.net then you stop email from millions of legitimate
> addresses.
>
Otherwise known as SPAM. The only people I want to hear from in my inbox are
my friends, family and those I have given permission to email me. I am not
trying to be arrogant, but I HATE unsolicited email with a passion.

Richard

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
> I tried to email you but your email system rejected my address:
>
> Recipient address:
> Reason: Server rejected MAIL FROM address.
> Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.0.0 porn spamming network
> Remote system: dns;mail.rrcnet.org
> (TCP|167.206.5.72|57474|209.105.74.131|25) (rrc2.rrcnet.org ESMTP Hello
from
> rrcnet; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:51:13 -0600)
>
>
> Good luck.
>
>
> "Ben" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Hello,
> > As a senior in high school, i was able to get my private pilot's
> > license on dec 31, 2003. i love flying(what pilot doesn't, right?)
> > but i'm looking for a cheaper way to build hours then renting. i was
> > just playing with an idea, and i wanted your responses. Would an
> > airplane owner ever offer to share operating expenses for payment to
> > share a plane? i know that i would have to be put on an insurance
> > plan, and i of course would pay for over half of the owners insurance
> > payement, plus whatever kind of costs for annuals and other
> > inspections. i know this is almost like co-ownership, but i don't
> > have the resources to be buying a plane. I'm not trying to ask for
> > something for nothing, as i've said, i'll pay for operating and
> > insurance costs, as agreed with an owner.
> >
> > Well, how would you respond to this kind of proposal? let me know!
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Benjamin
> >
> > If you want to email me....
> > #b#a#s#o#g#@#r#r#c#n#e#t#.#o#r#g#
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
> [...]
> My domain is optonline.net, which is a major cable internet ISP. If you
> block optonline.net then you stop email from millions of legitimate
> addresses.

Why you replied by email, I don't know. However, as far as the blocked
domain goes, it's likely he has nothing to do with that.

Probably his ISP is using one of those obnoxious black-hole lists that
automatically detects spam and adds IP ranges from which the spam originated
to its database. Of course, since a third of all spam these days is being
sent from compromised but otherwise legitimate users, this sort of idiotic
solution results in innocent bystanders getting their email blocked.

My ISP provides this kind of "service", and once I found out what was going
on, I told them to disable it for my email. I don't get any more spam than
I used to, and I don't have friends and family complaining that they can't
send me email anymore.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Soon_To_Fly" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
> > My domain is optonline.net, which is a major cable internet ISP. If you
> > block optonline.net then you stop email from millions of legitimate
> > addresses.
> >
> Otherwise known as SPAM. The only people I want to hear from in my inbox
are
> my friends, family and those I have given permission to email me. I am not
> trying to be arrogant, but I HATE unsolicited email with a passion.

I don't think he means "you stop millions of legitimate pieces of email".
He just means there are millions of legitimate addresses, a handful of whom
might actually send you email. For example, if one of your friends or
family or those you have given permission to email you are using
optonline.net, they would not be able to send you email.

I hate spam as much as they next guy, but seems like you're flying off the
handle a bit here...

[Peter Duniho]

"Ben" > wrote in message
om...
> Well, how would you respond to this kind of proposal? let me know!

It depends. But sure, if structured right, as an airplane owner I would
consider something like that.

Without a capital investment, you would expect less than full partnership
benefits, while being expected to pay full rate for your fair share of
operating expenses. That means that you'd pay the pro-rata share of fixed
costs, plus all hourly costs incurred by you. At the same time, you would
not have priority for scheduling, you would have no say in how maintenance
on the airplane was done, nor on how to manage the fixed costs, that sort of
thing.

Also keep in mind that I don't know what the legality of something like this
would be. As an owner, I wouldn't make such an offer to just anyone. It'd
have to be someone I know well and whom I'd otherwise consider for
partnership in the airplane. I also wouldn't go out of my way to mention
the arrangement to the FAA. Some inspector might get the mind to call such
an arrangement a lease, even though IMHO it's clearly a partnership of
sorts.

If you or the owner are really worried about the legality, you could even
draw up some sort of partnership papers that outline your rights (or lack
thereof) as a partner, and your investment (or lack therof).

Pete

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Peter Duniho > wrote:
>
>Probably his ISP is using one of those obnoxious black-hole lists that
>automatically detects spam and adds IP ranges from which the spam originated
>to its database.

The problem is that some people get so much spam that if they didn't
take drastic filtering measures they wouldn't get your email anyway --
they wouldn't have time to sift through the spam looking for it.

>Of course, since a third of all spam these days is being
>sent from compromised but otherwise legitimate users, this sort of idiotic
>solution results in innocent bystanders getting their email blocked.

Not really. 'Compromised' broadband users infected with viruses that
turn them into spam zombies should still be sending their legitimate
email through their ISP's server, which will not be on the DUL-style
lists I assume you are refering to. There is plenty of collateral
damage from IP blocking, but the cause of those blocks is usually ISP
supported spam.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Peter Duniho]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:RSR5c.27524$JL2.318706@attbi_s03...
> The problem is that some people get so much spam that if they didn't
> take drastic filtering measures they wouldn't get your email anyway --
> they wouldn't have time to sift through the spam looking for it.

Did you read my post? I had my ISP *** DISABLE *** the black-hole list
functionality for my email account, and it produced NO CHANGE in the amount
of spam I receive.

Not only was it blocking legitimate email, it turned out it did not appear
to be blocking any spam that SpamAssassin (which my ISP also runs) wasn't
already catching.

Obviously it is possible to filter out spam without resorting to such
drastic measures.

> Not really. 'Compromised' broadband users infected with viruses that
> turn them into spam zombies should still be sending their legitimate
> email through their ISP's server, which will not be on the DUL-style
> lists I assume you are refering to.

You have no clue about what you're talking about. The reason that I had my
ISP disable the black-hole list was that domains such as aol.com,
comcast.com, and cox.net were being blocked. These are all "respectable"
ISPs who take a no-tolerance stance toward their users sending spam.

The same tool, by the way, was blocking another friend's email because he
was running his own email server behind a dynamic IP address. Yet another
inappropriately blocked, perfectly legitimate source of email.

Your claim that those sources of email "will not be on the DUL-style lists"
is just plain wrong.

> There is plenty of collateral
> damage from IP blocking, but the cause of those blocks is usually ISP
> supported spam.

Baloney. I receive practically no email from anyone using an ISP that
supports spam. I doubt I know ANYONE who uses an ISP that supports spam.
And yet email sent to me was getting blocked on a regular basis, because
those spam-intolerant ISPs that my friends and family do use were still
getting blocked.

Do you really believe that Ben or his ISP at rrcnet.org have blocked the
optonline.net domain as a spamming network legitimately?

Pete

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Peter Duniho > wrote:
>
>You have no clue about what you're talking about. [...]

I don't know why you've decided to elevate this straight to "flamewar".
I agree that the fallout from spam (false positives especially) is
reaching unacceptable levels. Don't be so quick to condemn those who
have been burned by insufficient filtering who have resorted to stronger
measures. Just because you don't need them (on the scale of your own
personal inbox) doesn't mean they're useless.

>> There is plenty of collateral
>> damage from IP blocking, but the cause of those blocks is usually ISP
>> supported spam.
>
>Baloney. I receive practically no email from anyone using an ISP that
>supports spam.

How would you even know? And besides, I said "collateral damage". I'm
including the case where small ISPs have IP blocks that are near known
spammers and overzealous blackhole list admins hit them too.

>Do you really believe that Ben or his ISP at rrcnet.org have blocked the
>optonline.net domain as a spamming network legitimately?

That's a loaded question, you just spent the rest of your message ranting
about how the blocks are never legitimate. The server in question is
listed on 4 out of 31 blackhole lists at the moment. The policies of
at least a few of those require that actual spam come from the actual
server to one of their traps. I wouldn't use them at blacklists because
I find their policies too extreme. But then again I only process tens of
thousands of junk email messages a day, probably a few orders of magnitude
below a medium sized ISP.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Nathan Young]

On 16 Mar 2004 17:12:58 -0800, (Ben) wrote:

>Hello,
> As a senior in high school, i was able to get my private pilot's
>license on dec 31, 2003. i love flying(what pilot doesn't, right?)
>but i'm looking for a cheaper way to build hours then renting. i was
>just playing with an idea, and i wanted your responses. Would an
>airplane owner ever offer to share operating expenses for payment to
>share a plane? i know that i would have to be put on an insurance
>plan, and i of course would pay for over half of the owners insurance
>payement, plus whatever kind of costs for annuals and other
>inspections. i know this is almost like co-ownership, but i don't
>have the resources to be buying a plane. I'm not trying to ask for
>something for nothing, as i've said, i'll pay for operating and
>insurance costs, as agreed with an owner.

Go to the airport. Hang out. Help people. Make friends. There are
a lot of planes that sit idle that could use the 'exercise'. The
difficult part will be getting someone to trust you enough to accept
the risk of letting someone else fly their plane.

Where are you based?

-Nathan

[Ben]

Hey,
Sorry, don't know anything about my server blocking my
emails...but i added your domain to my safelist on my hotmail account,
so if you still really want to email me, you can. Of course, you
could always reply in the newsgroup too!
Benjamin

> I tried to email you but your email system rejected my address:

[Peter Duniho]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:XyT5c.28636$J05.189678@attbi_s01...
> I don't know why you've decided to elevate this straight to "flamewar".

Because I have a very low tolerance of fools who insist on contradicting
what I say, even when they don't have a clue.

> [...] Just because you don't need them (on the scale of your own
> personal inbox) doesn't mean they're useless.

I never said they were useless. I said they didn't provide a benefit worthy
of the cost.

> How would you even know? And besides, I said "collateral damage". I'm
> including the case where small ISPs have IP blocks that are near known
> spammers and overzealous blackhole list admins hit them too.

Again, have you even bothered to read my post? ISPs being blocked are not
just small ISPs with "IP blocks that are near known spammers". In fact, the
ones I've had the most trouble with are AOL, Comcast, and Cox; typically,
when they get blocked, it's a *sub-block* within their total allocated range
that is blocked. They are NOT being blocked as a result of being adjacent
to some spam-friendly ISP.

> >Do you really believe that Ben or his ISP at rrcnet.org have blocked the
> >optonline.net domain as a spamming network legitimately?
>
> That's a loaded question, you just spent the rest of your message ranting
> about how the blocks are never legitimate.

It's not a loaded question. It has everything to do with the post to which
you made your original, idiotic reply.

Pete

[Darrel Toepfer]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Again, have you even bothered to read my post? ISPs being blocked are not
> just small ISPs with "IP blocks that are near known spammers". In fact, the
> ones I've had the most trouble with are AOL, Comcast, and Cox; typically,
> when they get blocked, it's a *sub-block* within their total allocated range
> that is blocked. They are NOT being blocked as a result of being adjacent
> to some spam-friendly ISP.

Blocking the dialup/cable/dsl modem pooled IP's of another ISP are the
necessary evils of being an ISP. You don't want to receive spam/virii
from their users computer acting as their own SMTP server...

Rooting out the true SMTP servers of each ISP (especially a stealth
spammer like E@rthlink or a proxy based one like A0L) is the tough part
of IP blocking. C0X and RR both use regional mail servers which make it
that much harder again. Anybody on Comc@st or @delphia, needs to get a
Hotmail or Yahoo email account...

Getting spam from adjacent blocks, just helps keep the filter file list
smaller, as they are added together...

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Peter Duniho > wrote:
>Because I have a very low tolerance of fools who insist on contradicting
>what I say, even when they don't have a clue.

You know, after your last bit of frothing I looked at some of your
older usenet posts. You didn't used to be such a dick. What happened?

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Jim Fisher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>The same tool, by the way, was blocking another friend's email because he
>was running his own email server behind a dynamic IP address. Yet another
>inappropriately blocked, perfectly legitimate source of email.

No it is not inappropriate or legitimate. Your friend is an idiot and
should have known that running a mail server under a dynamic address
(probably by using a DNS service) is one of the surest ways of getting on a
blacklist or ten.

Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of mail servers should know this or know
ways of getting around it.

He shold pay the extra bucks for a static address like other "legitmate"
mail servers. If not, well, you get what you pay for.

> Baloney. I receive practically no email from anyone using an ISP that
> supports spam. I doubt I know ANYONE who uses an ISP that supports spam.

Hate to break it to you, Pete, but your own ISP is a fairly well-known
spammer. "They" don't actually spam, but they are a friendly host to
spammers. They are known to ignore spam complaints and not take appropriate
action on abuse reports. A quick Google on the NANAE Usenet group will
reveal all.

They are not alone, of course. Cox cable was blacklisted by many for the
longest time. Verizon, AOL, Level3, Roadrunner, Yahoo and many other very
well known and popular ISPs have been listed on the major blacklists at one
time or another. "Unfair" blacklists the only way to get these big
providers attention sometimes.

>Do you really believe that Ben or his ISP at rrcnet.org have blocked the
>optonline.net domain as a spamming network legitimately?

Why wouldn't they? When I (or my customers) get desperate enough, I will
also make use of a half dozen well known blacklists. Yeah, you might miss a
few legitimate emails but the alternative is a flooded mailbox and bandwidth
problems. It's a desperate measure and one that you do not adopt with
haste. But when all else fails and your small customer doesn't want to pay
the big bucks for decent filtering, you make do.

--
Jim Fisher

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:35:28 GMT, "Soon_To_Fly" >
wrote:

>> My domain is optonline.net, which is a major cable internet ISP. If you
>> block optonline.net then you stop email from millions of legitimate
>> addresses.
>>
>Otherwise known as SPAM. The only people I want to hear from in my inbox are

No, there has been great difficulty defining spam, but it is generally
accepted as UBE, or commercial stuff that has not been signed up for.
On thing it is not is simply unsolicited e-mail from the normal person
on use net.

>my friends, family and those I have given permission to email me. I am not
>trying to be arrogant, but I HATE unsolicited email with a passion.

Then don't post on newsgroups or be thoughtful enough to put a
statement in your sig to reply only on usenet and the reply address is
invalid.
Any one using that approach and posting on use net should at least
make such a statement in their sig.

The original post was of such a nature than many on here would tend to
give it a personal reply and it contains an address for replying. You
only have to remove the characters. Hence it provides a method of
replying directly and has nothing to do with your spam response. He
took a very good approach. That his ISP is out in left field is not
his fault.

My ISP decided to start filtering. The problem was they were
filtering on content and although many argue vehemently to the
contrary I have found that filtering on content gives too many false
positives. My wife and I both do a lot of on-line work and we depend
on e-mail. It used to be something on which we could depend and where
I worked was the same. (I was one of the sys admins). WE also do a
lot of business via e-mail so false positives can cost money.

Fortunately as a dot com I have enough authority on the web hosting I
can set the filters as I wish. So I set them to only tag spam and
viruses as junk mail. The mistakes that system makes is amazing, but
this way I just glance through the *stuff* and delete what I don't
want.

I can understand dumping some ISPs into a black hole that actively
host spammers, but the cable networks with millions of customers have
a tremendous job of eliminating the idiots who do not use any
protection on their computers and then end up and an open proxy or
relay for spammers. Remember that nearly all the viruses so far have
been of a nature that the user does it to them selves. It's not the OS
it's the users.

Some ISPs black hole any of the cable networks. I'd change ISPs in
that case.

One more thing. My address is "munged" but can be figured out. It is
not that way because of spam. In all the years on the net I've never
had a problem with spam and I've had a rather high profile. It is
that way because the average user doesn't practice safe computing. I
saw a figure on one of the news programs and I think one virus checker
uses it in an add, that something like half the computers hooked to
the internet have been infected by a virus or worm at one time or
another. My address is munged because I was receiving bounce messages
due to some one, or more likely several who had me in their address
books had opened that worm attachment going around. They only open
attachments from people they know. They never stop to think those are
the people who have them in their address books and that is the most
likely place for the virus to originate. They should black hole all
the ISPs sending out those bounce messages and the two worst are AOL
and Microsoft. (or they were)

I've taught this stuff at the university level and I can say with
great certainty that the average user is clueless. The people in
those classes were certainly above average, had to use computers on a
daily basis and over 90 % of them were clueless.

Having spent my professional carer in CS I have very little tolerance
for either the poorly designed spam filters, or ISPs who simply black
hole the large providers to the general public. OTOH I agree whole
heartedly with them for black holing the ISPs that support the
spammers.

Oh... The spammers have figured out that a user activated worm can be
designed to harvest e-mail addresses, so many of the computers
infected in the last 6 months have been doing two things. They have
been providing the spamers with millions of addresses that they could
not obtain otherwise AND they are installing trojans in those infected
computers to send spam for them. So we are finding that some of the
people who are vehemently against spam are the ones sending it and
they have no idea it's coming from them.

It's reaching the point where those with infected computers will have
their service terminated and only be allowed back on after they prove
their system is clean. That means paying the ISP to come out and check
it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Richard
>
>"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>> I tried to email you but your email system rejected my address:
>>
>> Recipient address:
>> Reason: Server rejected MAIL FROM address.
>> Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.0.0 porn spamming network
>> Remote system: dns;mail.rrcnet.org
>> (TCP|167.206.5.72|57474|209.105.74.131|25) (rrc2.rrcnet.org ESMTP Hello
>from
>> rrcnet; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:51:13 -0600)
>>
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>>
>> "Ben" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > Hello,
>> > As a senior in high school, i was able to get my private pilot's
>> > license on dec 31, 2003. i love flying(what pilot doesn't, right?)
>> > but i'm looking for a cheaper way to build hours then renting. i was
>> > just playing with an idea, and i wanted your responses. Would an
>> > airplane owner ever offer to share operating expenses for payment to
>> > share a plane? i know that i would have to be put on an insurance
>> > plan, and i of course would pay for over half of the owners insurance
>> > payement, plus whatever kind of costs for annuals and other
>> > inspections. i know this is almost like co-ownership, but i don't
>> > have the resources to be buying a plane. I'm not trying to ask for
>> > something for nothing, as i've said, i'll pay for operating and
>> > insurance costs, as agreed with an owner.
>> >
>> > Well, how would you respond to this kind of proposal? let me know!
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance,
>> > Benjamin
>> >
>> > If you want to email me....
>> > #b#a#s#o#g#@#r#r#c#n#e#t#.#o#r#g#
>>
>>
>

[John Galban]

(Ben) wrote in message >...
>
> Well, how would you respond to this kind of proposal? let me know!
>

Negatively. While I understand your monetary dilemna, I have no
incentive for letting a high school senior, with no financial interest
in my plane, fly it. Sorry, but you asked how I would respond.

On the brighter side, you may find some owner whose plane is not
flown regularly. Surprisingly, a lot of folks work hard making the
money to afford the plane, then don't have time to fly it. Planes
that are not flown regularly begin to deteriorate. If you can find
this kind of owner, you might find someone who is receptive to your
proposal. I know a few folks that have pulled it off successfully
in the past. You will have to make the deal sound very attractive to
the time-strapped owner, so I suggest you sweeten the deal by offering
to perform some basic maintenance (oil changes, etc...) and cleaning
of the bird.

Good Luck,

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Ben]

Worthington, MN (OTG)


> Where are you based?
>
> -Nathan

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Soon_To_Fly" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
> > My domain is optonline.net, which is a major cable internet ISP. If you
> > block optonline.net then you stop email from millions of legitimate
> > addresses.
> >
> Otherwise known as SPAM. The only people I want to hear from in my inbox
are
> my friends, family and those I have given permission to email me. I am not
> trying to be arrogant, but I HATE unsolicited email with a passion.
>
> Richard
>


Hey Richard, anytime someone asks for information, and supplies their email
address, the reply is solicited, by definition.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why you replied by email, I don't know. However, as far as the blocked
> domain goes, it's likely he has nothing to do with that.
>

I had info which I did not want to broadcast publicly but which I felt might
be directly useful to the poster of the question.

[Peter Duniho]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
. ..
> Blocking the dialup/cable/dsl modem pooled IP's of another ISP are the
> necessary evils of being an ISP.

No, they are not. Not when the ISPs being blocked are actively anti-spam.

[Peter Duniho]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:OV06c.31312$Cb.514996@attbi_s51...
> >Because I have a very low tolerance of fools who insist on contradicting
> >what I say, even when they don't have a clue.
>
> You know, after your last bit of frothing I looked at some of your
> older usenet posts. You didn't used to be such a dick. What happened?

You quoted the explanation. I've always been this way. It's just it takes
a particular kind of idiot to set me off. I don't mind people disagreeing
with me, but I do mind people flat out calling me a liar when they don't
have the facts on their side.

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> They should black hole all
> the ISPs sending out those bounce messages and the two worst are AOL
> and Microsoft. (or they were)

Well, *now* the bounce messages carry the virus themselves and the senders are
forged. I must've gotten at least 30 "bounces" from various addresses purporting
to be the filter at "america. net" before I finally just added the entire domain
to my block list.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ben wrote:
>
> As a senior in high school, i was able to get my private pilot's
> license on dec 31, 2003. i love flying(what pilot doesn't, right?)
> but i'm looking for a cheaper way to build hours then renting. i was
> just playing with an idea, and i wanted your responses. Would an
> airplane owner ever offer to share operating expenses for payment to
> share a plane?

I certainly would not consider doing that with a minor who has no assetts or
money. It's my house they're going to take if you run up more damages than the
insurance will cover, and, in this neck of the woods, 1 million doesn't cover a
whole lot.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[[email protected]]

Welllll.....

Here is what happened here...

One of our partners is 24, working as a flight instructor and
pushing airplanes around...

He has little "up front cash" to invest...

But he is a "partner" with enough shares on paper to qualify
as a "part owner" .

The other 3 of us could each write a cheque for the airplane,
but operating costs are another matter (as most reading this NG are
aware) ....So our airplane HAS TO FLY, and we need enough GOOD pilots
involved to fly the thing 200 + hrs./yr.

This guy is a GOOD pilot, (commercial IFR) and is a
responsible person. He is the one who washes the aircraft when he is
slack,( the other "instructors" would not stop so low). He
sweeps/washes the floor, helps ANYONE pushing/handling their plane,
and is far and away the the best employee at the FBO, even when no
one is looking.

One of our partners is 73 (retired Airline Capt, 31000+ hrs)
who, because of age, "needs a checkout" <G> every 6 months for the
insurance co.

Guess who does this?

And is weather comes in, he is close by to check the tiedowns
etc. on "his" airplane...

Works for us anyway...

A senior in high school? That would be a reach. Personally I
think you should be able to bring some "value" to the partnership. Our
young "partner" (IMHO) brings significant value to our project..

Lotsa bucks up front was not the most important issue with
us...

YMMV...

Dave




On 16 Mar 2004 17:12:58 -0800, (Ben) wrote:

>Hello,
> As a senior in high school, i was able to get my private pilot's
>license on dec 31, 2003. i love flying(what pilot doesn't, right?)
>but i'm looking for a cheaper way to build hours then renting. i was
>just playing with an idea, and i wanted your responses. Would an
>airplane owner ever offer to share operating expenses for payment to
>share a plane? i know that i would have to be put on an insurance
>plan, and i of course would pay for over half of the owners insurance
>payement, plus whatever kind of costs for annuals and other
>inspections. i know this is almost like co-ownership, but i don't
>have the resources to be buying a plane. I'm not trying to ask for
>something for nothing, as i've said, i'll pay for operating and
>insurance costs, as agreed with an owner.
>
>Well, how would you respond to this kind of proposal? let me know!
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Benjamin
>
>If you want to email me....
>#b#a#s#o#g#@#r#r#c#n#e#t#.#o#r#g#

[Darrel Toepfer]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> Darrel Toepfer wrote...
>
>>Blocking the dialup/cable/dsl modem pooled IP's of another ISP are the
>>necessary evils of being an ISP.
>
> No, they are not. Not when the ISPs being blocked are actively anti-spam.

There is no valid reason to allow dialup accounts to send SMTP direct.
Route the mail through the provider's server, works for millions of
other people...

[Jim Fisher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
but I do mind people flat out calling me a liar when they don't
> have the facts on their side.

I don't think anyone called you a liar. Idiot, perhaps, for attempting to
debate a topic that you, quite obviously, have no background in. But liar?
Naw.

--
Jim Fisher

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Peter Duniho wrote:
> My ISP provides this kind of "service", and once I found out what was going
> on, I told them to disable it for my email. I don't get any more spam than
> I used to, and I don't have friends and family complaining that they can't
> send me email anymore.

Lucky you. I get around 120 emails a day - on average, 118 are spam.

SpamAssassin 2.60 does a much better job at filtering the spam than I
can do by hand. Filtering by hand is prone to false positives too. I've
also employed the SBL-XBL (a realtime listing of compromised machines,
as well as those owned by the worst spam-gangs) to reject as much as the
obvious spam as possible.

There is no legitimate reason why a *.client.comcast.net address should
be emailing me - anyone on cable/DSL etc. should send their mail through
their ISP's smart host (which are NOT blocked by the SBL-XBL).
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Peter Duniho]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Lucky you. I get around 120 emails a day - on average, 118 are spam.

You only get two pieces of email a day that aren't spam? Why do you even
bother? You don't have any reason to even use the Internet for mail, as
near as I can tell. I don't see what your anomalous situation has to do
with this sub-thread though.

> SpamAssassin 2.60 does a much better job at filtering the spam than I
> can do by hand.

It sure does. Like I said, SpamAssassin already filters out everything that
might have been blocked by the black-hole list my ISP was using.

> [...]
> There is no legitimate reason why a *.client.comcast.net address should
> be emailing me - anyone on cable/DSL etc. should send their mail through
> their ISP's smart host (which are NOT blocked by the SBL-XBL).

You, like several other people, are not bothering to read what I wrote.

In only ONE instance is the blocked email coming from a friend's own mail
server. All of the other blocked email messages WERE sent through their
ISP's mail server and they ARE blocked by the black-hole list service.

I don't know why this is so hard for you guys to grasp. You keep claiming
that the service isn't doing what I say that it does do. I know what it
does, I spent a huge amount of time learning about it (when the bounces
first started happening, I didn't have any idea why), and I know for a fact
that it is blocking perfectly legitimate email for absolutely no good
reason.

The whole concept is paternalistic crap. It punishes ISPs, especially the
largest ones (since they have the most exposure), even if they are doing
their best to keep spam off of their networks, and causes no end of
headaches for legitimate users.

Spam filtering is well and good but any proper solution will NEVER EVER
block legitimate email. One single false positive is simply unacceptable.
It is better to accept more false negatives instead.

Pete

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:21:02 -0600, Darrel Toepfer
> wrote:

>Peter Duniho wrote:
>> Darrel Toepfer wrote...
>>
>>>Blocking the dialup/cable/dsl modem pooled IP's of another ISP are the
>>>necessary evils of being an ISP.
>>
>> No, they are not. Not when the ISPs being blocked are actively anti-spam.
>
>There is no valid reason to allow dialup accounts to send SMTP direct.
>Route the mail through the provider's server, works for millions of
>other people...

I find it surprising that a dial-up would even bother trying to be
their own server except for strictly educational means. For that
matter, why would a cable user bother to do so when they can use the
provider and it's so much simpler.

I can think of no reason not to block mail from dynamic IP hosts.

Yet, I do know of one person who insists on using his own server and
mail server on cable. Never have figured out why.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Peter Duniho wrote:
<snip: only 2 legitimate emails a day/why email?>
I only get a couple of phone calls a day. I still have a phone.
Difference is my phone doesn't get spammed. Even on days where I get ten
or eleven legitimate emails, having to pick them out from over 100 spam
emails is not feasable so filtering has to be employed.

> I don't know why this is so hard for you guys to grasp. You keep claiming
> that the service isn't doing what I say that it does do. I know what it
> does, I spent a huge amount of time learning about it (when the bounces
> first started happening, I didn't have any idea why), and I know for a fact
> that it is blocking perfectly legitimate email for absolutely no good
> reason.

No, I'm not. I don't make any claims as to what your ISP does. My
article was about a particular approach with RBLs, and that was to use a
combination of the SBL-XBL and SpamAssassin. The former does not block
ISPs smart hosts. The SBL-XBL is one of the more conservative RBLs -
it's not SPEWS.

> The whole concept is paternalistic crap. It punishes ISPs, especially the
> largest ones (since they have the most exposure)

The SBL-XBL doesn't list any of the large ISP's smarthosts. AOL et al.
get delivered fine. AOL is also doing useful things like putting SPF
(http://spf.pobox.com) records in their DNS zones so I can tell if mail
claiming to be from AOL really is from AOL before I accept it (a lot of
spam comes with forged AOL headers. SpamAssassin can score against
forged headers).

> Spam filtering is well and good but any proper solution will NEVER EVER
> block legitimate email. One single false positive is simply unacceptable.

This is impossible. If you get a lot of spam, even filtering by hand still
gets false positives - either that or you spend several hours a day
making doubly sure you're not going to hand-filter ham as spam, in which
case email becomes cost-ineffective. I know that before SA/SBL-XBL I
accidentally deleted emails because they looked to me like spam.

To be honest, I wouldn't consider email a reliable method of
communication thanks to the spammers. Things like SPF will help as it
will mean we can tell if From: headers are forged from the get-go, but
unless ISPs get more agressive about stopping the spam problem (giving
users firewalled access by default instead of anything goes - definitely
blocking outbound port 25, rate limiting their smart hosts so
residential users are limited on how many emails they can send per day
etc.) it's only going to get worse.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> I only get a couple of phone calls a day. I still have a phone.
> Difference is my phone doesn't get spammed.

One of the advantages of living in Britain. If I get only two calls a day, I'm
lucky. Most of the calls are spam. I pay an extra $7.50 a month for "caller ID"
to allow me to avoid most of it, and we're on the national "don't call" list,
which is supposed to stop most of it (and which the telemarketers simply ignore).
One of the most annoying things about it is that, if you *do* answer the phone,
many of these guys have software that delays the response (to avoid answering
macines, I expect), and they don't even answer until you've said "Hello" three
or four times. I've gotten to the point that I say "Hello" once and, if nobody
replies, I hang up.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Roger Halstead
> wrote:

> I find it surprising that a dial-up would even bother trying to be
> their own server except for strictly educational means. For that
> matter, why would a cable user bother to do so when they can use the
> provider and it's so much simpler.

some reasons:

because the provider has proven to be unreliable.

because it is really to change email addresses.

because I'm a geek.

>
> I can think of no reason not to block mail from dynamic IP hosts.

that doesn't mean there are any valid reasons to block all
email from dynamic IP hosts.

>
> Yet, I do know of one person who insists on using his own server and
> mail server on cable. Never have figured out why.

see above.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

> There is no legitimate reason why a *.client.comcast.net address should
> be emailing me - anyone on cable/DSL etc. should send their mail through
> their ISP's smart host (which are NOT blocked by the SBL-XBL).

"no legitimate reason"? huh?

--
Bob Noel

[Brien K. Meehan]

(Ben) wrote in message >...
> Would an
> airplane owner ever offer to share operating expenses for payment to
> share a plane?

A lot of airplane owners do this.

To simplify, they calculate the cost per hour based on the hourly
operating cost and the fixed cost (stuff like insurance, oil changes,
etc) per expected number of hours used, and use that calculated hourly
cost as a basis for collecting payments.

This arrangement is usually called "renting."

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Bob Noel
wrote:
> In article >, Dylan Smith
> wrote:
>
>> There is no legitimate reason why a *.client.comcast.net address should
>> be emailing me - anyone on cable/DSL etc. should send their mail through
>> their ISP's smart host (which are NOT blocked by the SBL-XBL).
>
> "no legitimate reason"? huh?

If you want to run servers at home, get a proper business account
instead of using a consumer account. Or get a virtual private server
somewhere (they aren't expensive, especially when you consider the
electricity costs of leaving a server-class machine on 24x7) The amount of
legitimate email vs Windows worms and spam I get from dynamic IP ranges
is so tiny that it doesn't even register as noise. During the Swen
outbreak, I was getting a couple of Swen emails per minute. Frankly, I'm
fed up with it. Use your ISP's smarthost or if you really insist on
running your own mailserver, pony up for a business account, or get a
VPS and run your own SMTP server there.

Still, I use the SBL-XBL because it doesn't just indiscriminately block
all ranges, just the ones that are particular problems.

I also reject any email with a Windows executable at the DATA stage.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 03:19:24 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >, Roger Halstead
> wrote:
>
>> I find it surprising that a dial-up would even bother trying to be
>> their own server except for strictly educational means. For that
>> matter, why would a cable user bother to do so when they can use the
>> provider and it's so much simpler.
>
>some reasons:
>
>because the provider has proven to be unreliable.

If the provider has proven unreliable it is highly unlikely their dial
up service used as a server is going to be more so.

>
>because it is really to change email addresses.

I can change e-mail addresses on my ISPs server in a matter of
seconds. I log in, go to the proper URL, create and or delete
addresses. It doesn't take much longer than that.

>
>because I'm a geek.

That's legit.

>
>>
>> I can think of no reason not to block mail from dynamic IP hosts.
>
>that doesn't mean there are any valid reasons to block all
>email from dynamic IP hosts.

The reason for blocking dynamic IPs is they keep changing. Some one
spamming, logs out, and back in. Instant new address. When you have
hundreds of thousands of users, let alone just a few thousand it takes
a whole staff to keep users in line. Sure they can be traced using
the logs (if the ISP keeps good longs), but a dynamic IP would make
them easily traceable.

Let one of those dynamic IPs get infected with a trojan and become a
slave server and it's instant mayhem.

>
>>
>> Yet, I do know of one person who insists on using his own server and
>> mail server on cable. Never have figured out why.
>
>see above.

Nah, it's gotta be more than that. His server is less reliable, he
moved to cable and although he claims it's static, the IP changes
every time he reboots. He has to feed all his machines through one on
a different NIC so he can get away with using a server on the cable.

Yes, the cable is cheaper and faster than DSL. OTOH, I use web
hosting, I pay about $40 a month more than he does, I don't have to
service the equipment, I don't have to keep backups, I don't have to
do the many things the ISP does to deal with the whole wide world, and
my server is legal. Still I have firewalls, virus checkers, spam
bots, and the like.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Roger Halstead wrote:
>>because I'm a geek.
>
> That's legit.

It's also legit for private networks to not accept mail from dynamic IP
ranges. For every geek who runs a legitimate mail server on a dynamic
range, there are probably a thousand more machines spewing trojans and
spam. The reality of the situation is if the geek wants to run a mail
server, they need to do it on a static IP range using a provider who
doesn't harbour spammers.

I run a small email/webhosting service. It's only got a dozen
users. In the last 24 hours, Exim rejected 676 emails for containing
either Microsoft executables or being in the SBL-XBL, and SpamAssassin
flagged 1660 emails as being spam. For a dozen users! Whilst the risk of
false positives is highly undesirable, it's the lesser evil of having to
collectively go through the 2336 spam message haystack by hand to find the
few 'ham' needles - every day! You should have seen the rejectlog when
Swen was at its height. If that server had been on my home DSL
connection, it would have been saturated by Swen alone. My own personal
mailbox of Swen alone would have tied up my DSL connection for a long
time had I not been able to filter it at the server.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:42:47 GMT, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>I pay an extra $7.50 a month for "caller ID"

*whow* I pay EUR 7,- [1] [2] for the whole service, including mailbox,
caller ID, etc. etc.

#m

[1] well, this is not much, therefore I have to pay higher rates for calls.
20 eurocent per minute - no matter where I call to within the country,
billed in 30 second increments. No passive fees for receiving calls, but
this is standard.
[2] about EUR 20,- per month brings you rates down to 1 eurocent per minute
within the same network and to land based phones.

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

> >>because I'm a geek.
> >
> > That's legit.
>
> It's also legit for private networks to not accept mail from dynamic IP
> ranges.

nope. That approach is just "shoot em all, sort em later." The
"effectiveness" of it doesn't make it legit.

iow - since so much email is spam/uce, just delete them all.

--
Bob Noel

[Dylan Smith]

In article >,
Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >, Dylan Smith
> wrote:
>
>> >>because I'm a geek.
>> >
>> > That's legit.
>>
>> It's also legit for private networks to not accept mail from dynamic IP
>> ranges.
>
> nope. That approach is just "shoot em all, sort em later." The
> "effectiveness" of it doesn't make it legit.
>
> iow - since so much email is spam/uce, just delete them all.

That's disingenious and you know it. My spam filter can be thought as
the INS of my computer: just like people from countries where the most
illegal immigration come from don't get to be in the visa waiver
program, email from where most the spam comes from has to go through the
proper channels. The vast majority of the spam comes from dynamic IP
address ranges that are listed in the SBL's Exploit Blacklist. If you
happen to live in those places, and you want your email to be accepted
by my private network, you must go through the proper channels - your
ISP's smart host. Or stop being a skinflint and get a proper business
DSL connection that supports servers (or host your mailserver elsewhere,
a suitable VPS starts at a very good price).

Or are you suggesting it's feasable and worthwhile for 12 users to sort
through over 2500 pieces of spam to find on average 10 legitimate emails
a day each? Why should we spend hours filter by hand just to allow a
handful of geeks to run servers on a consumer dialup connection?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Roger Halstead
> wrote:

> >some reasons:
> >
> >because the provider has proven to be unreliable.
>
> If the provider has proven unreliable it is highly unlikely their dial
> up service used as a server is going to be more so.

it turns out that my ISP was able to provide the connectivity
but didn't know much about keeping email (and usenet) servers
up and running.

> >because it is really to change email addresses.
>
> I can change e-mail addresses on my ISPs server in a matter of
> seconds. I log in, go to the proper URL, create and or delete
> addresses. It doesn't take much longer than that.

When I first starting running my tiny email server, my ISP
didn't allow email name changes, never mind have multiple
email accounts.


[snip]
> >> Yet, I do know of one person who insists on using his own server and
> >> mail server on cable. Never have figured out why.
> >
> >see above.
>
> Nah, it's gotta be more than that.

it really is as simple as that in my case. My use of
of a home email server is classic geek.


>His server is less reliable, he
> moved to cable and although he claims it's static, the IP changes
> every time he reboots.

My ISP's DHCP attempts to give out the same IP. My "dynamic IP"
changes only when the ISP needs to move folks to a new subnet
(or the DHCP burps bigtime). In the past 6 or 7 years, I might
have had 6 or 7 IP changes (and almost that many hostname changes,
highway1 to roadrunner to mediaone to attbi...)


> He has to feed all his machines through one on
> a different NIC so he can get away with using a server on the cable.
>
> Yes, the cable is cheaper and faster than DSL. OTOH, I use web
> hosting, I pay about $40 a month more than he does, I don't have to
> service the equipment, I don't have to keep backups, I don't have to
> do the many things the ISP does to deal with the whole wide world, and
> my server is legal. Still I have firewalls, virus checkers, spam
> bots, and the like.

--
Bob Noel

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:08:02 -0000, Dylan Smith wrote:

>email from where most the spam comes from has to go through the
>proper channels.

Most of the spam originates in the US.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

> Or stop being a skinflint and get a proper business
> DSL connection that supports servers

Your assumption regarding whether or not I'm being cheap is incorrect.

Your assumption that only business accounts can properly run servers is
incorrect.

--
Bob Noel

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Bob
Noel wrote:
> In article >, Dylan Smith
> wrote:
>
>> Or stop being a skinflint and get a proper business
>> DSL connection that supports servers
>
> Your assumption regarding whether or not I'm being cheap is incorrect.
>
> Your assumption that only business accounts can properly run servers is
> incorrect.

But my assumption that 99.9% of mail directly from a dynamic IP address
is spam/malware is entirely correct. I'm not going through all that crap
just because one geek refuses to get a static IP address for their
mail server. Just like if you come from North Korea, you need a visa to
visit the US, if you want your mail to be delivered to my users, you
must use an IP address which is not strongly identified with machines
running malware.

If you're not being cheap, what exactly are your reasons to send mail
directly from your dynamic IP address instead of ponying up for a VPS or
a static IP address?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> Yes, the cable is cheaper and faster than DSL.

Comcast cable is $70/month here. Verizon DSL is $40. I haven't noticed any
difference in speed, but then I'm not uploading much. Supposedly that's where
cable is greatly superior to ADSL.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>> Yes, the cable is cheaper and faster than DSL.
>
> Comcast cable is $70/month here. Verizon DSL is $40. I haven't noticed any
> difference in speed, but then I'm not uploading much. Supposedly that's where
> cable is greatly superior to ADSL.

I think it mainly depends on the provider as to which is superior. ADSL
(at least the flavour we have here) is IIRC, if you're within a suitable
distance limit of the phone exchange, is capable of up to 8Mbit/sec down
and at least 1Mbit/sec up. Of course, the telco only provides us with a
fraction of that!

Cable is also asymmetric, and I think the bandwidth you get depends
again on the provider.

However, once you get to the DSLAM or cable head-end, you've got
contention to worry about - a certain number of users will share a
certain amount of bandwidth. For here, if you pay extra for a business
account, you get backhaul shared with fewer users.

Then there's RADSL (rate adaptive ADSL), which is probably what they are
really using. I think in the DMT (discrete multi tone) linecode scheme,
the download part of your ADSL link uses the lower frequencies, and the
upload part uses the higher frequencies (the copper loop to the phone
exchange IIRC has about 1.1MHz or so of usable bandwidth, but don't
quote me on that!) The higher frequencies attenuate more than the lower
ones - so if you're a long way from the phone exchange, RADSL will tend
to lower your download speed if there's lots of signal degradation,
since that's what'll start to go first.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:55:40 -0000, Dylan Smith wrote:

>I think it mainly depends on the provider as to which is superior. ADSL
>(at least the flavour we have here) is IIRC, if you're within a suitable
>distance limit of the phone exchange,

this is always the case.

>is capable of up to 8Mbit/sec down
>and at least 1Mbit/sec up. Of course, the telco only provides us with a
>fraction of that!

this has some logic. because you can reach more customers with lesser
bandwidth.

>Cable is also asymmetric, and I think the bandwidth you get depends
>again on the provider.

cable by itself or xDSL by itself is not asymetric. it is what you make out
of it. when using *A*DSL you go assymetric. when you use SDSL or G.HDSL you
have a symetric line. for cable it is only the rate that it is set.
besides: you (technically) can have ADSL with 512 up and down.

>However, once you get to the DSLAM or cable head-end, you've got
>contention to worry about - a certain number of users will share a
>certain amount of bandwidth. For here, if you pay extra for a business
>account, you get backhaul shared with fewer users.

same applies if your line goes direct into the POP of your ISP. at some
point you are on a shared network. it is all about the overbooking factor
and how your customers notice a delay.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:44:06 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>In article >, Bob
>Noel wrote:
>> In article >, Dylan Smith
> wrote:
>>
>>> Or stop being a skinflint and get a proper business
>>> DSL connection that supports servers
>>
>> Your assumption regarding whether or not I'm being cheap is incorrect.
>>
>> Your assumption that only business accounts can properly run servers is
>> incorrect.
>
>But my assumption that 99.9% of mail directly from a dynamic IP address
>is spam/malware is entirely correct. I'm not going through all that crap

I'm not sure if it is quite that high, but the figure is staggering.
Given a cable network with thousands of users, it only takes a few
infected machines, and or a few actual spammers to really tie things
up.

I've said it before, but not just the average user, but most are
absolutely clueless. They do not know how to, or care to bother
practice safe computing. They enable HTML e-mail instead of setting
it to plain text. They have their address books set to automatically
take any new addresses to which they send e-mail. They open
attachments as they know "their" friends would never send them a
virus. They have their systems set to automatically run macros. and
on and on and on... They do not use fire walls or virus checkers and
then when something happens they blame the operating system. Never
mind that had all the defaults been turned off they would have turned
them back on.

The spammers have discovered that the best way to get addresses now is
to infect the machine so it sends out the contents of their address
book. This has given them a whole new set of addresses that are never
put up on the net.

>just because one geek refuses to get a static IP address for their
>mail server. Just like if you come from North Korea, you need a visa to
>visit the US, if you want your mail to be delivered to my users, you
>must use an IP address which is not strongly identified with machines
>running malware.

And the static IP for the mail server is easy to get. All you do is
use your ISPs mail service rather than creating your own server on a
dial up. Or sign up for one of the free ones.

>
>If you're not being cheap, what exactly are your reasons to send mail
>directly from your dynamic IP address instead of ponying up for a VPS or
>a static IP address?

It doesn't cost me a cent extra to use my IPSs mail server (static
IP), or in this case, my own (which is static) although the host is
located at the ISPs rather than here. It's much faster.

The point is there is no real reason for the end user to use dynamic
e-mail addressing.

I will make a prediction. It won't be long and ALL e-mail will have
to have a valid return address. There will be no more legal anonymous
addressing, or posting.

Even with the "do not call" list, I still receive more telemarketing
calls than spam. (political campaigns, special interest groups,
charities, religious organizations... they are by definition exempt
from that law)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:10:18 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >, Roger Halstead
> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>My ISP's DHCP attempts to give out the same IP. My "dynamic IP"
>changes only when the ISP needs to move folks to a new subnet
>(or the DHCP burps bigtime). In the past 6 or 7 years, I might
>have had 6 or 7 IP changes (and almost that many hostname changes,
>highway1 to roadrunner to mediaone to attbi...)
>
>

Thing is, a reverse look up will show a valid IP so you are still for
all effective purposes using a static IP.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Dylan Smith wrote:
> quote me on that!) The higher frequencies attenuate more than the lower
> ones - so if you're a long way from the phone exchange, RADSL will tend
> to lower your download
^^^^^^^^

should have been UPLOAD speed!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Roger Halstead wrote:
> I will make a prediction. It won't be long and ALL e-mail will have
> to have a valid return address. There will be no more legal anonymous
> addressing, or posting.

I don't think it'll be long either until you need a license to operate
an MTA (just like you need a radio license to operate an amateur radio
rig). With the amount of mail abuse that's happening, something's got to
give. If people were responsible for the abuse eminating from their MTA,
(i.e. could lose their license to operate the MTA - in the case of an
ISP, the whole ISP would find themselves with a suspended license and
unable to send email) they'd be a damned sight more careful about making
sure that the abuse could be minimized.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Roger Halstead
> wrote:

> I will make a prediction. It won't be long and ALL e-mail will have
> to have a valid return address. There will be no more legal anonymous
> addressing, or posting.

don't confuse email with usenet.

--
Bob Noel

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:50:57 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >, Roger Halstead
> wrote:
>
>> I will make a prediction. It won't be long and ALL e-mail will have
>> to have a valid return address. There will be no more legal anonymous
>> addressing, or posting.
>
>don't confuse email with usenet.

I'm referring to both.

Given the direction regulations and lack of knowledge have been
following, I'd almost bet that within a few years it will be illegal
to send e-mail,*OR* post on news groups without a valid return
address. At least they are going to try.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Roger Halstead
> wrote:

> >> I will make a prediction. It won't be long and ALL e-mail will have
> >> to have a valid return address. There will be no more legal anonymous
> >> addressing, or posting.
> >
> >don't confuse email with usenet.
>
> I'm referring to both.
>
> Given the direction regulations and lack of knowledge have been
> following, I'd almost bet that within a few years it will be illegal
> to send e-mail,*OR* post on news groups without a valid return
> address. At least they are going to try.

But a valid return address wrt usenet is what? the poster's email
address? But email isn't usenet, and having an email address should
never be a requirement for using usenet (after all, they are two
entirely different systems).

I'm hoping that you're thinking that there will be no anomyous
posting on usenet (which is different than requiring posters to
use a valid email address).

--
Bob Noel

[Darrel Toepfer]

Bob Noel wrote:
> Roger Halstead:

>>I can think of no reason not to block mail from dynamic IP hosts.
>
> that doesn't mean there are any valid reasons to block all
> email from dynamic IP hosts.

Virii and spam come to mind... Pick any one, much less both...