On Mon, 02 Mar 2015, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to mark lewis:

 MvdV>> Easy for mailers software that supports that option. Not all
 MvdV>> do. InterMail doesn't. Irex doesn't.

 ml> are you absolutely sure about that?

 MvdV> It turns out I was wrong.

not a problem, michiel... glad i was able to help in this regard...

[trim]

 ml> irex was also modeled closely after frontdoor... the author was a 
 ml> FD Beta team member for a while... it would surprise me if he 
 ml> didn't include that option as well... irex can also handle freqs, 
 ml> right??

 MvdV> Yes, Irex can handle freqs. But if it has an option to deny
 MvdV> picking up file requests, I have not found it.

that one may also be in the events section... it is the logical place, as in
frontdoor, to put it since the events qualify what connections and transfers
are allowed to take place... freq configuration sections would be for what to
do with freqs received...

 MvdV>> So even trying it was considered annoying behaviour.

 ml> then someone isn't using all available resources... turn off the
 ml> ability to pick up waiting freqs and there is no problem...

 MvdV> What if the option is not available in the softwre that one uses?

then they have a choice to make...

 ml> the solution is available... refusing to use it is also annoying
 ml> behaviour...

 MvdV> Forcing someone to install another mailer is also annoying.

agreed... i've felt the same way all these years when ""you"" have tried to
force ""me"" to change mailers, tossers, and bbs software... at least one well
known individual was browbeaten over and over and over by certain folks in Z2
until they finally decided to switch and that switch still wasn't good enough
for the browbeaters :?

 MvdV> Putting file requests on hold was just "not done" here.

 MvdV>> Now you are doing it again: Creating an outlandish scenario by

 ml> until you walk in my shoes and deal with the support scenarios that i
 ml> deal with, you are clueless and ignorant... yet you spout off as if
 ml> you do know everything about anything...

 MvdV> Thank you. I love you too.

 :) 

 MvdV>> stacking exception upun excepotion until the situation becomes
 MvdV>> so exceptional that the original action makes no sens any more.

 ml> i have not stacked any exceptions... i stated plainly that some ISPd
 ml> charge their customers by the customers' requests... if the customer
 ml> uses ftp and pulls down a 2gig file, the request and response are
 ml> noted together and the customer has that 2gig deducted from their
 ml> allocation...

 MvdV> Exactly what I said: on a metered account the user is charged for
 MvdV> the number of bytes received. How does that not apply to a
 MvdV> response on a picked up file request?

again must i point out that your statement denotes a flat blanket charge for
all inbound data and not only data that is specifically requested to come in??
are they charged for all the traffic from skiddies and hacker-wannabes?? think
about it ;) 

)\/(ark