Port 25 and Static/Dynamic IP for Listserve SW

[Amedee @ Ubuntu]

On Sat, July 18, 2009 23:04, Piper wrote:

> Either I use Majordomo or Mailman "as is" and I use them for PRIVATE
> lists, not public list service

YES!

> or I have Evolution modified for the 2 criteria I stated earlier.

NO. That will never happen. Pigs will sooner fly.

> All that means is I need the same list service that Express
> gives me but in addition (1) an automatic sub-unsub feature; (2) a feature
> whereby everyone on the list gets his posting sent to all on the list.

If you really want to think about it that way, be my guest. It's
fundamentally wrong but I'm getting tired of explaining over and over. You
have won, I have lost.

> Since that violates no Shaw rule, there should be no problem.

Of course not.

As long as you don't break any "maximum X mails per Y minute rule". Shaw
has a limit of 1000 email messages per 24 hour day, according to
http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/AboutShaw/TermsofUse/AcceptableUsePolicyInternet.htm
One email to a list of 50 persons counts as 50 emails. If one of them
replies to the list, it will again count as 50 emails. That means a
maximum of 20 list emails per day. That doesn't seem a lot to me...

HOWEVER... please read "Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other Limitation" on
the same web page:

<quote>
You may not run a server in connection with the Shaw Services nor may you
provide network services to others via the Shaw Services. Examples of
prohibited servers and services include, but are not limited to, mail,
http, ftp, irc, dhcp servers, and multi-user interactive forums. Some
business services may be exempt from these limitations.
</quote>

And I repeat:
"Examples of prohibited servers and services include, but are not limited
to, mail"
A mailing list is technically a mail service. Doesn't matter if it is
commercial, public or private. It's still a service.


> I ask my puter shop for estimates on the three alternatives above (unless
> they know of a ready-made program which does the job).

Three alternatives? There were only two.

> Should I switch to another public server instead of Yahoo? No, because I
> have no reason to expect they will be any better and I posted the
> complaints about Yahoo here earlier ..... and to Yahoo repeatedly.

I can understand that you fear that Google will fail you in the same way
as Yahoo did. That's your choice.

> In reply to Siggy who wondered if I had "commercial" purposes the answer
> is an emphatic NO.
>
> I do not want the legal liability of being responsible for what other
> people put on lists over which I have no control. Also I cannot get rich
> from this because if I can set up my own private listserver (and it
> seems I can) then so can anyone else.

The "commercial" argument is irrelevant.

> PS - Some day the same thing may have to be done with free public web
> sites.
> We may have to host our own web sites on our own computers.

Then you would need:
* a domain name
* a fixed IP address OR
* a dynamic IP address + some dyndns service
* a webserver on your own computer (of course)
* your ISP must allow traffic on port 80
* your ISP must allow you to host websites on your own computer

The last thing will get you in trouble:

<quote>
You may not run a server in connection with the Shaw Services nor may you
provide network services to others via the Shaw Services. Examples of
prohibited servers and services include, but are not limited to, mail,
http, ftp, irc, dhcp servers, and multi-user interactive forums. Some
business services may be exempt from these limitations.
</quote>

See? You are not allowed to run a http (web) service.

-- 
Amedee