[PLUG] Covad DSL?

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Jul 18 18:51:02 UTC 2003


The list doesn't need this semantic bickering, I know.  But this sort of
thing is important so I'll post this one and take the rest off-list.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Ed Sawicki wrote:
> ---
> On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 16:33, Derek Loree wrote:
>
> > Seems like it would be easier to keep a list of IP addresses that you
> > want to receive mail from, then let the firewall drop everyone else.
> > Then if anyone in the company sends an email to a new IP address, they
> > just tell you and you add it to the list.
>
> That's exactly what I do. We maintain a white list so
> we can still communicate with people who are within the
> black listed netblock.
>
>
> > I'm against blocking email by IP address, the availability of
> legitimate
> > email suffers too much with this kind of filtering.
>
> I assume that you don't really mean this. You already stated
> that the firewall should block mail from all IP addresses not
> on the white list.
> ---
>
> You then replied:
>
> ---
> Actually, he said it would be easier for YOU to maintain whitelists, not
> that he would like to do that himself.
> ---
>
> I don't think Derek was talking about my workload versus his
> workload and there are no words in the message to indicate that.

There isn't?  How about this [emphasis mine]:

"Seems like it would be easier to keep a list of IP addresses that YOU
want to receive mail from, then let the firewall drop everyone else.
Then if anyone in the company sends an email to a new IP address, they
just tell YOU and YOU add it to the list."

He is telling you what would be easier for YOU to do.  Even if you
interpret that to be "a person" and not YOU specifically, it still doesn't
mean ME or I.

> I think he was talking about the wisdom of ANYONE blocking email by
> large IP address ranges.

Granted, he might have been talking about how ANYONE could block large IP
address ranges if they wanted to do it efficiently, but that HE wouldn't
do it himself.

> But I don't have any idea whether he really meant that because I'm not
> Derek. I also know that you're not Derek.

It's just a matter of giving a person the benefit of the doubt and not
assuming contradiction when there is another possibility.  It's courtesy
and respect and trust.

> The best solution would be for Derek to respond, but he's probably
> wondering why this silly exchange has gone as far as it has - as I am.
> This is a tough list to be on. Lots of nits to be picked at and I guess
> I started it by telling Derek that he didn't mean what he said. I'll try
> not to do that again.

That could be for the best.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG mailing list