testing, please excuse, and ignore

[Janina Sajka]

Gregory Nowak writes:
> > Also, I would not have
> > expected that sending via your ISP's smtp would provide sufficient
> > authentication to Bumpy for your mail to be accepted. 
> 
> Why? Incoming mail is incoming mail, and there is no reason for me to have to authenticate with bumpy, or whatever other mx I send mail to. The only authentication I may have to do is with the smtp server that relays mail from my machine to the mx which it is destined for. Actually, I believe the mx for the speakup list is speech, not bumpy.


Authentication may be too strong a term in the current instance, and the
server may be speech and not bumpy, but there is still authentication of
a sort going on. Else, you would surely be able to post to the list from
any address you happen to be at, and that is not the case by Kirk's
intent. Perhaps he'll tell you the details? I simply don't recall the
specifics off the top of my head. However, it is now common for lists to
accept mail only from the machine you subscribed from.

> 
> > After all, it you
> > subscribed from your machine, not from your ISP's machine.
> > 
> 
> Again, I don't see what you're driving at here. I subscribed from my email address, and the machine I use is irrelevant, as long as that machine is configured to receive mail from the email address I use, and sends mail with that particular address in the from line of the message.

Not irrelevant at all.

> 
> > While I was still at AFB I had to deal with this all the time because I
> > traveled frequently. My eventual solution is the one I recommend. I
> > configured my sendmail to accept TLS authenticated mail from me at
> > whatever address I might happen to be using. This includes configuring
> > relaying based on the TLS authentication. It has worked splendidly--but
> > I run my own smtp.
> > 
> 
> Well, that is kind of redundant for me, since even if I sent mail through my server, my server would still pass that message onto my ISP's relaying smtp servers, which I can do here directly, provided that I use my ISP's dial-up access, which I get in my ADSL package.

Perhaps redundant, perhaps not. If it enables you to communicate
comfortably and affordably, I would not think it redundant.

> 
> > SSH is a good choice, unless you're at a location where latency makes
> > communication difficult, if not virtually impossible. What can I say?
> > 56K modem dialup in Budapest was just too slow for connections to
> > Washington.
> > 
> > 
> 
> In my case right now, ssh isn't a very good choice, since I'm on a 9600 baud cell phone connection. Yes, I could get GPRS, but that would be $20/month with my current plan, or it would come free with a new plan. Since I'm happy with my current plan, and only need to use dial-up via cell phone once a year for a limited length of time, I don't see the point of switching to a new plan, or paying $20/month extra for something I don't use often.
> 
> Also, I have a 20-hour dial-up limit from my ISP, and have 600 whenever minutes on my cell. If I were to use ssh for interactively reading and sending mail, I'd run out of one or both sets of minutes very fast, not to even mention regular calls I make on my cell.
> 
> Also, if you were dialing from Budapest to Washington D.C. which would have been an international call (shudder thinking of the cost), the highest speeds you could have gotten were 33.6K, if even that high. You most certainly couldn't have achieved 56K speeds on an international call.

No, not an international call. I had a local dialup number in Budapest.
I had a uu.net account for that very purpose--to give me local dialups
around the planet.