Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(December 2001)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Yahoo! message
From: Tim Pierce <twp @ rootsweb . com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 01:30:48 -0500
To: kinnaman @ Io . Com
Cc: List-Managers @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20011217155612.032a9a30@mail.nwlink.com>; from kinnaman@Io.Com on Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 04:02:15PM -0800
References: <Todd <200112150900.BAA28846@honor.greatcircle.com> <v0421010cb843cc4ea5a2@[128.253.64.63]> <ylr8pt77m4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217155612.032a9a30@mail.nwlink.com>
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 04:02:15PM -0800, kinnaman@Io.Com wrote:
> 
> Or that you think building a one-recipient-domain
> white list for "bulk" SMTP mail is a bad/foolish idea?
> 
> If it is the later, I certainly agree. Imagine if every
> recipient domain required pre-registration of my
> IPs, my From: Domains, and my contact information
> before they would deliver the mailing list e-mail that
> THEIR users asked for?

We have more than 37,000 subscribers at yahoo.com.  If they
want to give me the opportunity to pre-emptively whitelist
our site, I'm not going to say no.  I only wish AOL were so
solicitous.

(I have not received this note allegedly from Yahoo! staff.)

Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't understand why this note
is supposed to be so absurd.  Some of it is really poorly worded
(the bit about domains that appear in outgoing "From" headers,
for example), but most of the letter sounds reasonable and sensible
to me.




Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: why anyone would require renewals
From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier@ripco.com>
Next: Re: Yahoo! message
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Yahoo! message
From: kinnaman@Io.Com
Next: Re: Yahoo! message
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com