The software licenses thing was just an example, and I'm not saying that I would never buy a used book; I've bought as many as the next guy. But if I'm shopping at Amazon, I'm looking to buy new stuff, not used stuff. I think that's the way a lot of people are. Seems EVERYONE on both sides is blowing this out of proportion. ---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
The issue is not that the authors say Amazon cannot and should not allow users to sell their used books. The issue is the PROMINENCE of these listings, and the fact that no controls are in place to prevent the sale of review or other preview copies of books (that is, copies sent out to publications before actual release so that reviews can be made). The authors want the link to be less prominent, or not there at all, for in-print books, so that the first thing a user sees is the actual new book, not the fact that they can get it for much less used.
I know I, personally, wouldn't want to buy a used copy. The marketplace links have never affected my purchasing decisions at amazon. But I can see where the authors are coming from. Would you like it if you wrote a piece of commercial software, and the site it was sold on listed used licenses that you could buy to transfer at the same level or above the new copies that you make royalties on?
I know it's hard for/. readers to comprehend anything that isn't free, as everyone here has their open source blinders on, preventing any and all comprehension of surviving by selling something, but just TRY for once to realize that you CANNOT apply your almight open source principles to everything. EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD IS NOT THE SAME AS LINUX. GET A CLUE. ---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
There are plenty of (somewhat major) universities which are banning Napster, but not necessarily because the RIAA demanded it. Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) in Worcester, MA, has had Napster banned since the middle of last academic year; we were maxing out our 5 T1 lines to Qwest (barf) with Napster traffic; you should have seen the MRTG plummet when our manager of netops blocked the Napster servers. But then we went right back up to saturation a week later.
At the time, we were told Napster would be turned back on once the T3 (which had been on order for 9-12 months by then) got installed and hooked up. Well, it's up now, Napster was on for 6 hours (unannounced) and we managed to fill up the T3. It was blocked, again, the MRTG plummetted and we balanced out at about half of the T3 being used. The saturation of the T3, along with not wanting to have to turn over student names under subpeona orders, are the stated reasons for Napster being blocked here, not the RIAA's pressure.
Makes sense to me; while many students here feel that they don't need or want netops looking out for them, maybe they would change their minds when they got slapped with significant fines and/or criminal prosecution from the RIAA. We're all smart here, I think they can figure out how to use other services anyways. And the point of QoS remains; if we can fill a T3, how much bigger do we have to grow the pipe just to satisfy some MP3-hungry frosh?
(Also consider: a) Apple Computer is in the habit of bundling DVD-ROMs with their systems these days. b) Apple is basing MacOS X on BSD. Therefore, c) Apple will be providing BSD-DVD drivers legally to their users.)
What's your point in this? They're not going to be BSD DVD drivers, they're going to be OS X DVD drivers. OS X has a strong BSD base, yes, but it is not 100% BSD, and it sure won't be binary-compatible with BSD, and probably not even especially source-compatible for things like this, if the source of such drivers would even be open. Maybe something like this would happen, but don't count on it.
What you don't seem to understand is that you CAN get it back. See that "Withdraw Funds" button? Click it. You can take any money in your account right out again. Once you've given money from your PayPal account _TO_ someone, that's a different story, but it seems to me you're just trying to stir up confusion and an outroar.
I've been using PayPal for well over 6 months now, and processed a few thousand dollars of incoming cash with them, without the slightest of a problem. They know what they're doing, they've got tons of checks and balances in place, and they don't make a habit of screwing people over.
Nine times out of ten MS betas are far more stable than release versions. I'm quite convinced a vital step in the MS development process is "beta test to ensure optimum bug saturation - add bugs as necessary to taste". I think the point that was being made is that it isn't necessary to HIDE stuff; put up a link, let the morons who decide to download it and kill their systems die, it's their own problem.
If you want to be really pedantic about it, that's what they're doing. They are not changing what you're saying. They're adding something that, due to the nature of a Usenet posting (a non-MIME-fubared one anyway), you couldn't have put in there yourself, and is thus, quite obviously, something added after the fact. Fine, maybe they should have some sort of disclaimer on every page saying "Links marked with [this triangle] are inserted for your convenience by Deja.Com and are not necessarily the intent of the original poster." I'll agree they maybe should do that, but I won't agree that they don't have any right to do this. By posting to Usenet, you put your comments into the public domain, and people can quote them however they want; this is just Deja's way of quoting you.
I'll put it another way: If an online news source interviewed you, and added a link to http://www.microsoft.com/ in a quote from you where you said "Microsoft sucks", would that be the same thing? Would you be complaining that they altered your words in some way? The quote is identical to what you said, they simply added some reference material to it. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
the intent of other posters may be misrepresented to me by making it look like they linked to something they didn't
But they are NOT representing this. It seems quite obvious to me from the one example given in the posting that these links are put in by Deja; the little orange triangle amidst the plain text of a Usenet posting stands out to me very well. And anyone with half a brain knows that the original poster wouldn't have embedded that painful looking link to some dynamic deja.com page; in fact, they COULDN'T, because it was a plain text posting in the first place, by the nature of Usenet.
You're going way overboard and simply saying "everyone is trying to fuck me, the poster, over" for no reason and with no justification. Grow up; they're a few stupid little links, which any garden-variety moron can differentiate from the original poster's content.
I think you'll find that Deja's terms and conditions, along with the public nature of Usenet (you own copyright, but your messages are in the public domain, by definition, it's an implicit permission to copy), give them the right to make "cosmetic" changes like this. Copyright protection might (IANAL) protect you from them changing the actual textual content of your messages, but I highly doubt anyone would get a ruling against them for just adding a link here and there.
Getting (or attempting to get) the entire Linux community (and we all know how absurdly over-zealous THEY can be) up in arms about something does not qualify as simply providing feedback. It's a whole lot more; it's an attempt to pressure and force Deja to do what "we" want. I agree with other postings; they provide a free service, they clearly mark the links with the orange Deja triangle, it's their right to do this if they want to. You don't like it, fine, complain once, get the form letter, use the header, or use something else for your news needs. I prefer tin and a real news server, personally.
How many times are we going to hear and listen to this "web logs are evil" crap before someone points out that it's all total BS? If you're that paranoid, you should stay off the entire 'net. Logging is a fact of life; how else do you expect server admins to know if their nav is working right, or what parts of their sites are most popular to sell ads? It just doesn't add up. For most, who cares if their IP is seen and logged? It's dynamically assigned every time they log on anyway. Even if it's not... what difference does this possibly make? The claims of traceability here are total nonsense, and I can't see any reason anyone would believe this crap.
Very true... in fact, look at this file that I modified on Christmas in 1942:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 twilde twilde 107 Dec 25 1942 traceover.pl
:) My point was just that... well, I don't think I had a point, I just felt like saying something. Fact is, if they wanted to be underhanded, there are plenty of ways they could have done it, and they probably used every single one of them. But we don't KNOW that they did!:)
Looks pretty much like the previous release, just without the trade secret nonsense.
That was the entire point. It's MS. If you ever expect something MS to be totally open and, by your inferred definition, copyright-free, you're a lunatic.
Of course not.... MS would never do anything so wrong and immoral and not nice:) It's possible the page was just out there and not indexed/linked anywhere... IIRC, most of those timestamps are (theoretically) generated on-the-fly by the ASP engine based on the actual modification dates. Not really any way of checking that though. Unless someone wants to break into MS's web server(s);)
There's no reason you need any more of a wrapper than one tag. All these assumptions are totally baseless. It _could_ be bloated, or it _could_ take no more than 13 extra bytes per request.
The Mac OS X kernel is a Mach kernel, not BSD. The toolset used is the BSD toolset, among other BSD bits and pieces thrown in. Overall architecture is (as of DP3) NeXT on a Mach kernel though... so, that would be a "probably no" answer to your question, although I'm sure they're putting in patches based on what other people are updating all the time while they're working. It's not like they're going to release any time soon:)
My campus (which shall remain nameless except to those who know me and probably go here too) seems to have banned freedom of expression. Mind you, they'd argue with me about that, because I'm expressing myself to say it. Particularly on network matters this applies. I'll clarify to prevent the usual "well, you're just some lame script kiddie who thinks he knows what he's doing and tries to tell the professionals what they're doing blah blah blah".
I do LOTS of large-scale networking stuff as my hobby/semi-profession. I make it my responsibility to know what I'm talking about so I can explain what's wrong to users when it goes wrong, and as such have gained a very reasonable base in the fundamentals of networking and such over the time I've been administering UNIX/Linux systems. I can spew the buzzwords (BGP, IGMP (eww), OSFP, OSI Network Model, whatever) like the best of them, and at least have a decent understanding of what they mean. I also have resources who, if I DON'T know what something means, I ask them, and then I do understand.
So I contact our Network Operations department about a network outage, or a problem with inbound routing that is (admittedly by me) not their problem, but should be spoken to our provider about, or whatever. As a general rule I refuse to make the "hey, the network is broken!" complaints; I try to figure out the problem myself first, and then tell them about it. As a general rule, in most circumstances, I have been told by the manager or others in NetOps to go to hell, and that they know damned well what's wrong with their network, they get paid for this, I can't POSSIBLY know what I'm talking about, and to go away.
I don't understand this attitude to someone going out of their way to provide helpful information and possible diagnoses instead of "the network is broken". As a sysadmin and tech support provider myself, I know that SMART users who try to figure out problems themselves before contacting support@wherever make the support team's lives MUCH easier, and I for one am happy to get reports of problems, whether I've noticed them or not; it shows that people are paying attention and care enough about the service to ask it to get fixed.
So; I get told I'm not allowed to express that I'm having problems with the network, or if I do, that I'm not allowed to try to help. Great situation, if you ask me. So now I just don't bother. I look for my own ways around it. And if they don't like it, I guess they should have let me try to help them instead of working against them.
For probably the past 2-3 seasons, getting "new" stuff, particularly in non-myth episodes, has been pretty much moot for me. I mean, even in the myth episodes, I for one can pretty much ALWAYS predict what is about to happen, even as far as predicting the second part of a two-part episode. For me, the entire POINT of the X-Files is the cool technology, the occasional funny lines, and all of that. Who cares if it isn't 100% technically perfect all the time? BFD. Who cares if they gloss over some things? It's just a one-hour TV show. You have to give them credit with coming up with as much material as they have; once you try to do the exact same thing for seven years, you kinda start running out. I don't think I'll be particularly sad when X-Files ends after this season, but I won't be jumping for joy in the streets. It has been a good show, even in its predictable moments. And I really liked that episode; lots of kewl stuff blowing up;)
The correct URL for the story in question would be here. The URL in the story goes to today's news, and this was in yesterday's. And if you really don't feel like clicking on the link:
... to nugget. In all honesty, it can take a lot to admit that you fucked up, and that's what this is. As he said; they're human too, and mistakes happen. We should just be glad that this got caught before we were at like 200% and wondering what the hell was going on:)
Now let's get cracking and finish this thing, and my applause again to nugget for getting it all fixed and admitting it.
This could be a great tool for those of us who have to make loooong drives at night for work or other reasons. It would be a great help to long distance truckers, I would imagine, allowing them to extend their driving further into the night with somewhat less worries about their vision.
But how well does it work? Will it really provide significantly more safety? Will it even be viable? When will it become mainstream? How much extra will we have to pay? What might be side effects? So many questions have to be considered before we all jump on the bandwagon. Just my $0.02.
But where is it written that any of your points are NOT true either? That is why this is a rumor, and should be taken as such, and carefully examined as such, and not have knee-jerk reactions taken to as such. As such.:)
This isn't how the RBL works. An IP/IP block that is on the list is banned from sending mail to anyone who is subscribed to the list. Well, you can choose to do special things with people on the RBL, but most sites using the RBL will just send anything from sites which have been RBL'd straight to/dev/null. Now, if you mean your ISP is on the list of people who USE the RBL, you should have been more clear.
Slashdot Mirror
The software licenses thing was just an example, and I'm not saying that I would never buy a used book; I've bought as many as the next guy. But if I'm shopping at Amazon, I'm looking to buy new stuff, not used stuff. I think that's the way a lot of people are. Seems EVERYONE on both sides is blowing this out of proportion.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
The issue is not that the authors say Amazon cannot and should not allow users to sell their used books. The issue is the PROMINENCE of these listings, and the fact that no controls are in place to prevent the sale of review or other preview copies of books (that is, copies sent out to publications before actual release so that reviews can be made). The authors want the link to be less prominent, or not there at all, for in-print books, so that the first thing a user sees is the actual new book, not the fact that they can get it for much less used.
/. readers to comprehend anything that isn't free, as everyone here has their open source blinders on, preventing any and all comprehension of surviving by selling something, but just TRY for once to realize that you CANNOT apply your almight open source principles to everything. EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD IS NOT THE SAME AS LINUX. GET A CLUE.
I know I, personally, wouldn't want to buy a used copy. The marketplace links have never affected my purchasing decisions at amazon. But I can see where the authors are coming from. Would you like it if you wrote a piece of commercial software, and the site it was sold on listed used licenses that you could buy to transfer at the same level or above the new copies that you make royalties on?
I know it's hard for
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
and all the fans will be happy. Lucas needs to stop trying to get richer than he already is and focus on making the movie.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
There are plenty of (somewhat major) universities which are banning Napster, but not necessarily because the RIAA demanded it. Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) in Worcester, MA, has had Napster banned since the middle of last academic year; we were maxing out our 5 T1 lines to Qwest (barf) with Napster traffic; you should have seen the MRTG plummet when our manager of netops blocked the Napster servers. But then we went right back up to saturation a week later.
At the time, we were told Napster would be turned back on once the T3 (which had been on order for 9-12 months by then) got installed and hooked up. Well, it's up now, Napster was on for 6 hours (unannounced) and we managed to fill up the T3. It was blocked, again, the MRTG plummetted and we balanced out at about half of the T3 being used. The saturation of the T3, along with not wanting to have to turn over student names under subpeona orders, are the stated reasons for Napster being blocked here, not the RIAA's pressure.
Makes sense to me; while many students here feel that they don't need or want netops looking out for them, maybe they would change their minds when they got slapped with significant fines and/or criminal prosecution from the RIAA. We're all smart here, I think they can figure out how to use other services anyways. And the point of QoS remains; if we can fill a T3, how much bigger do we have to grow the pipe just to satisfy some MP3-hungry frosh?
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
What's your point in this? They're not going to be BSD DVD drivers, they're going to be OS X DVD drivers. OS X has a strong BSD base, yes, but it is not 100% BSD, and it sure won't be binary-compatible with BSD, and probably not even especially source-compatible for things like this, if the source of such drivers would even be open. Maybe something like this would happen, but don't count on it.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
That's not the price of the PDA, it's the price of the module. The highest end Visor (the Visor Deluxe) runs $250.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
What you don't seem to understand is that you CAN get it back. See that "Withdraw Funds" button? Click it. You can take any money in your account right out again. Once you've given money from your PayPal account _TO_ someone, that's a different story, but it seems to me you're just trying to stir up confusion and an outroar.
I've been using PayPal for well over 6 months now, and processed a few thousand dollars of incoming cash with them, without the slightest of a problem. They know what they're doing, they've got tons of checks and balances in place, and they don't make a habit of screwing people over.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
Nine times out of ten MS betas are far more stable than release versions. I'm quite convinced a vital step in the MS development process is "beta test to ensure optimum bug saturation - add bugs as necessary to taste". I think the point that was being made is that it isn't necessary to HIDE stuff; put up a link, let the morons who decide to download it and kill their systems die, it's their own problem.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
If you want to be really pedantic about it, that's what they're doing. They are not changing what you're saying. They're adding something that, due to the nature of a Usenet posting (a non-MIME-fubared one anyway), you couldn't have put in there yourself, and is thus, quite obviously, something added after the fact. Fine, maybe they should have some sort of disclaimer on every page saying "Links marked with [this triangle] are inserted for your convenience by Deja.Com and are not necessarily the intent of the original poster." I'll agree they maybe should do that, but I won't agree that they don't have any right to do this. By posting to Usenet, you put your comments into the public domain, and people can quote them however they want; this is just Deja's way of quoting you.
I'll put it another way: If an online news source interviewed you, and added a link to http://www.microsoft.com/ in a quote from you where you said "Microsoft sucks", would that be the same thing? Would you be complaining that they altered your words in some way? The quote is identical to what you said, they simply added some reference material to it. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
But they are NOT representing this. It seems quite obvious to me from the one example given in the posting that these links are put in by Deja; the little orange triangle amidst the plain text of a Usenet posting stands out to me very well. And anyone with half a brain knows that the original poster wouldn't have embedded that painful looking link to some dynamic deja.com page; in fact, they COULDN'T, because it was a plain text posting in the first place, by the nature of Usenet.
You're going way overboard and simply saying "everyone is trying to fuck me, the poster, over" for no reason and with no justification. Grow up; they're a few stupid little links, which any garden-variety moron can differentiate from the original poster's content.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
I think you'll find that Deja's terms and conditions, along with the public nature of Usenet (you own copyright, but your messages are in the public domain, by definition, it's an implicit permission to copy), give them the right to make "cosmetic" changes like this. Copyright protection might (IANAL) protect you from them changing the actual textual content of your messages, but I highly doubt anyone would get a ruling against them for just adding a link here and there.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
Getting (or attempting to get) the entire Linux community (and we all know how absurdly over-zealous THEY can be) up in arms about something does not qualify as simply providing feedback. It's a whole lot more; it's an attempt to pressure and force Deja to do what "we" want. I agree with other postings; they provide a free service, they clearly mark the links with the orange Deja triangle, it's their right to do this if they want to. You don't like it, fine, complain once, get the form letter, use the header, or use something else for your news needs. I prefer tin and a real news server, personally.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
How many times are we going to hear and listen to this "web logs are evil" crap before someone points out that it's all total BS? If you're that paranoid, you should stay off the entire 'net. Logging is a fact of life; how else do you expect server admins to know if their nav is working right, or what parts of their sites are most popular to sell ads? It just doesn't add up. For most, who cares if their IP is seen and logged? It's dynamically assigned every time they log on anyway. Even if it's not... what difference does this possibly make? The claims of traceability here are total nonsense, and I can't see any reason anyone would believe this crap.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
Very true... in fact, look at this file that I modified on Christmas in 1942:
:)
-rwxr-xr-x 1 twilde twilde 107 Dec 25 1942 traceover.pl
:) My point was just that... well, I don't think I had a point, I just felt like saying something. Fact is, if they wanted to be underhanded, there are plenty of ways they could have done it, and they probably used every single one of them. But we don't KNOW that they did!
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
Of course not.... MS would never do anything so wrong and immoral and not nice :) It's possible the page was just out there and not indexed/linked anywhere... IIRC, most of those timestamps are (theoretically) generated on-the-fly by the ASP engine based on the actual modification dates. Not really any way of checking that though. Unless someone wants to break into MS's web server(s) ;)
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
You and others keep making these "example" XML documents, but who is to say that a BXXP document will look anything like them? Why couldn't it be:
<bxxp>
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: whatever
Other-Headers: Other-Info
<HTML>
my HTML document here
</HTML>
</bxxp>
There's no reason you need any more of a wrapper than one tag. All these assumptions are totally baseless. It _could_ be bloated, or it _could_ take no more than 13 extra bytes per request.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
The Mac OS X kernel is a Mach kernel, not BSD. The toolset used is the BSD toolset, among other BSD bits and pieces thrown in. Overall architecture is (as of DP3) NeXT on a Mach kernel though... so, that would be a "probably no" answer to your question, although I'm sure they're putting in patches based on what other people are updating all the time while they're working. It's not like they're going to release any time soon :)
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
My campus (which shall remain nameless except to those who know me and probably go here too) seems to have banned freedom of expression. Mind you, they'd argue with me about that, because I'm expressing myself to say it. Particularly on network matters this applies. I'll clarify to prevent the usual "well, you're just some lame script kiddie who thinks he knows what he's doing and tries to tell the professionals what they're doing blah blah blah".
I do LOTS of large-scale networking stuff as my hobby/semi-profession. I make it my responsibility to know what I'm talking about so I can explain what's wrong to users when it goes wrong, and as such have gained a very reasonable base in the fundamentals of networking and such over the time I've been administering UNIX/Linux systems. I can spew the buzzwords (BGP, IGMP (eww), OSFP, OSI Network Model, whatever) like the best of them, and at least have a decent understanding of what they mean. I also have resources who, if I DON'T know what something means, I ask them, and then I do understand.
So I contact our Network Operations department about a network outage, or a problem with inbound routing that is (admittedly by me) not their problem, but should be spoken to our provider about, or whatever. As a general rule I refuse to make the "hey, the network is broken!" complaints; I try to figure out the problem myself first, and then tell them about it. As a general rule, in most circumstances, I have been told by the manager or others in NetOps to go to hell, and that they know damned well what's wrong with their network, they get paid for this, I can't POSSIBLY know what I'm talking about, and to go away.
I don't understand this attitude to someone going out of their way to provide helpful information and possible diagnoses instead of "the network is broken". As a sysadmin and tech support provider myself, I know that SMART users who try to figure out problems themselves before contacting support@wherever make the support team's lives MUCH easier, and I for one am happy to get reports of problems, whether I've noticed them or not; it shows that people are paying attention and care enough about the service to ask it to get fixed.
So; I get told I'm not allowed to express that I'm having problems with the network, or if I do, that I'm not allowed to try to help. Great situation, if you ask me. So now I just don't bother. I look for my own ways around it. And if they don't like it, I guess they should have let me try to help them instead of working against them.
Don't mind me as I rant aimlessly.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
For probably the past 2-3 seasons, getting "new" stuff, particularly in non-myth episodes, has been pretty much moot for me. I mean, even in the myth episodes, I for one can pretty much ALWAYS predict what is about to happen, even as far as predicting the second part of a two-part episode. For me, the entire POINT of the X-Files is the cool technology, the occasional funny lines, and all of that. Who cares if it isn't 100% technically perfect all the time? BFD. Who cares if they gloss over some things? It's just a one-hour TV show. You have to give them credit with coming up with as much material as they have; once you try to do the exact same thing for seven years, you kinda start running out. I don't think I'll be particularly sad when X-Files ends after this season, but I won't be jumping for joy in the streets. It has been a good show, even in its predictable moments. And I really liked that episode; lots of kewl stuff blowing up ;)
Just my $0.42 or so.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
The correct URL for the story in question would be here. The URL in the story goes to today's news, and this was in yesterday's. And if you really don't feel like clicking on the link:
http://us.imdb.com/StudioBrief/2000/20000222.htm l#3
Enjoy.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
... to nugget. In all honesty, it can take a lot to admit that you fucked up, and that's what this is. As he said; they're human too, and mistakes happen. We should just be glad that this got caught before we were at like 200% and wondering what the hell was going on :)
Now let's get cracking and finish this thing, and my applause again to nugget for getting it all fixed and admitting it.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
This could be a great tool for those of us who have to make loooong drives at night for work or other reasons. It would be a great help to long distance truckers, I would imagine, allowing them to extend their driving further into the night with somewhat less worries about their vision.
But how well does it work? Will it really provide significantly more safety? Will it even be viable? When will it become mainstream? How much extra will we have to pay? What might be side effects? So many questions have to be considered before we all jump on the bandwagon. Just my $0.02.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
But where is it written that any of your points are NOT true either? That is why this is a rumor, and should be taken as such, and carefully examined as such, and not have knee-jerk reactions taken to as such. As such. :)
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
This isn't how the RBL works. An IP/IP block that is on the list is banned from sending mail to anyone who is subscribed to the list. Well, you can choose to do special things with people on the RBL, but most sites using the RBL will just send anything from sites which have been RBL'd straight to /dev/null. Now, if you mean your ISP is on the list of people who USE the RBL, you should have been more clear.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!