On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, robert yawe <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, The problem is not the IP at my end but the IP of the providers SMTP server, they are the only ones who can request for it to be cleared but they are unresponsive,
Then they fail, and the best way to send them a message about that failure is for them to lose your business. I know I have the freedom to move to another provider but does
that really solve the problem of licensed operators not being monitored.
It's a market solution. There is no ISP in the world that is "monitored" by any government entity for running sub-standard production mail servers. That's why there are BLs.
What use is it then to have CCK license providers and then not police them or is it that their only objective is revenue collection? I expect that licensing by CCK of a provider is similar to KeBS placing their mark on a product, an assurance to the public that the particular organisations products and services have been vetted and soon to meet certain set performance levels.
yes, number of cllas dropped, and other metrics, but not compliance to RFCs.
I remember all the Hullabaloo about the DG, aren't some of this issues what should determine the KPIs for the organisation, its executive and finally the board of directors?
no. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel