No implementation for shlwapi.dll.0(StrRetToBufA)

[Francois Gouget]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Ove Kaaven wrote:

> 
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Francois Gouget wrote:
> 
> >    Sure they have the right to deny me access to their mail server, but
> > to imply that I'm only allowed to connect to my ISP's mail server is
> > bullshit.
> 
> Exactly why? You *should* use your ISP's mail server, that's what it's
> there for. Anything else is inefficient and plain stupid. You've found one
> of the reasons it's stupid - another is that if the target mailserver is
> unreachable for the moment, it's better to let the ISP's mailserver try
> again for the usual 5 days than to sit dialed up yourself for 5 days. Yet
> another reason would be that since your ISP generally has more bandwidth
> than your own dialup connection, both SMTP connections are less likely to
> time out and cause unnecessary retries, delays, and traffic.

   But I'm not behind a modem. I'm behind a DSL so the above really
doesn't matter much.
   I know I could just as well use my ISP's mail server and maybe I'll
change my configuration one day. But it seems to me that the MAPS DUL is
treating innocent users as criminals, especially when they say "and use
the equipment you're authorized to use." This means in their eyes I'm
not allowed to connect to anyone's mail server myself since they are not
part of the 'equipment I'm allowed to use'. I see this as an undue
restriction of my freedom and this is what I think is wrong with
MAPS DUL.
   I'm more favorable to other forms of Spam prevention like MAPS RSS
and ORBS. At least in these cases the servers being blocked are at a
minimum guilty of negligence (by being open relays).
   In contrast, people using MAPS DUL are discriminating against
individuals just because some might be spammers (they don't even claim
there is a larger proportion of spammers among them). What if a big
chain store refused to let you in because some statistics says you
belong to a population group with a higher percentage of shop-lifters.
'But of course, feel free to shop on the web, it's more convenient
anyway'. It's discrimination just the same and, IMO, the wrong way to
tackle the problem.


> >    Well, I cannot tell you that you should switch to another ISP, it
> > would be too easy for me and hypocritical as I'm not sure I would do it
> > if I were in your situation. I'll see if I can send them a complaint
> > email (without it getting bounced).
> 
> Maybe *you* should switch to another ISP, one that is able to educate
> their users properly.

   If an ISP tells me I am not allowed to send mail without going
through their mail server then I certainly won't subscribe. It's a
matter of freedom.
   It also seems to me that this leads to a system where dialup users
are second rate internet citizens and have fewer rights than first rate
citizens. So in this future if you're not an accredited corporation you
would not have the right to connect to any computer but your ISP's
servers which will then relay your traffic... for a fee, if they see
fit...
   ISPs have a lot of more important things to educate their users
about. They could start with how to secure one's computer (or how to do
masquerading ;-).

   To come back to my mail server configuration, I must admit I did not
really intentionally set it up this way though I've known about this for
a long time. I may change its configuration one day but it's not high in
my todo list. And somehow it recently got quite a bit lower.


   Why is wine-dev so quiet lately? This sad thread is almost the only
one today. would it be that everyone is waiting for the return of
Alexandre?


--
Francois Gouget         fgouget at free.fr        http://fgouget.free.fr/
        War doesn't determine who's right.  War determines who's left.