You've removed my pivotal question in your quote and replied to something much less meaningful. I'm happy to have an interesting discussion if you want to continue, because I think it's an interesting subject and not because I have an agenda to push (because frankly nothing we say here is going to impact existing policy either way) but that conversation is going to be much less interesting if we're answering half-questions.

You made a bold statement that said (and I'm paraphrasing) that because an innocent person could be put to death that no people should be put to death. I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with that statement, but I'm asking if it's really any different than saying that because an innocent person could spend their entire life in deplorable jail conditions that no person should be put in jail? The burden of proof is higher in a capital case so how does one justify innocent people spending life in prison while at the same time condemning execution?

I'm not 100% convinced that letting an innocent person sit in jail for 60 years is any different, and many would argue is worse, than dying. If that is true then what makes us think that incarceration is morally superior to execution? Irreparable mistakes will be made either way.

Has it really been "equally improved"? Or would the $1.5 million dollars ($30k/year for 50 years) it costs to incarcerate that person for life have a greater social benefit spent in reducing future crime such early childhood education, community outreach programs and mental heath? Further for those that are released after murder, rape, etc, after x years and re-enter the society as their "debt paid" and then re-offend, what is the cost to that, both financially as well as impact to social improvement?

A quick (and horrifying from current social acceptance) math exercise shows that executing the 159,000 people serving life sentences (in US prisons as of 2012) would provide roughly $5 billion dollars a year (or a quarter of a trillion dollars over the period of time those people are serving their sentences) that could be directed to social welfare. If there is one thing we do not have a shortage of on this planet, it's people.

The point I was trying to make was that with any policy there is going to be mistakes, whether those mistakes are in execution, or whether the mistake is in non-execution - those mistakes are going to cause innocent people to die either way.

Is letting the innocent rot in jail for 60+ years until they die from (un)natural causes is any better for that person, or does it just make society feel morally superior? Or, are you really suggesting that "And we must not put people who are not actually guilty in jail. Ever."...?

The sad reality is that every day people die from mistakes, sometimes those mistakes are their own and sometimes they are the mistakes of others.

dupe: Forgot to login first.

Except that it's the misused version of 'begets', and not the actual concept of 'begs'. It's about as correct as 'wratched' being used currently in place of 'wretched', but it's never been about 'begging'.

It's easy to remember 20+ web passwords if they mean something to you:

I Use Gmail For Sending Email = IUGFSE.

My Money Is Safe At Toronto Dominion Bank = MMISATDB.

I Love To Eat Pizza At Joe's Pizzeria = ILTEPAJP. ...add a sequence or some other memorable number, perhaps a standard special character as the 2nd or 3rd character, and capitalize the even, odd, or 4th and last characters or whatever makes sense to you and you end up with:

iu@GfsE54
mm@IsatdB54
il@TepajP54

...easy to remember, and pretty strong passwords.

Same holds true for an unarmed populace.

+8

It's still British food.

Very rarely are static and dynamic IP's issued from the same subnet. If you can't get out of a blocked range and won't switch ISP's, then smart-host.

Really? From TFA: "We are singling out spammers on our network and blocking port 25," said Mitch Bowling, Comcast's vice president of operations. "We don't think it's the right approach to blanket port 25. The right approach is to seek out people who are spamming our network and others." ...so, any spammers they find, instead of terminating the account they block port 25. Of course everyone else they don't 'find' can still spam away...

If you aren't able to get a proper reverse DNS entry for your public outbound mail server then you probably shouldn't be running one. If you have a real static IP (as opposed to "my IP doesn't seem to change") - then it shouldn't be a problem getting the DNS setup correctly.

To answer the original question about "what should you do", the answer is simple - if the ISP won't issue a PTR record because of the type of connection being used then the customer should smart-host their mail through the ISP mail servers to ensure global reachability. As you say, often the edge device is a swiss-army knife and in many cases the admin isn't competent enough to properly secure/maintain it. This is exactly what blocking outbound SMTP from dynamic space is meant to accomplish and I'm pleasantly surprised to hear that Comcast/Verizon have finally started to implement what every other responsible ISP has been doing for a decade.

5) Stop trying to run a mail server from a dynamic IP address and wondering why the rest of the world doesn't want to accept your mail.

Thank you!

To play devil's advocate using your example it'd be the same as selling "child poison" and saying there are plenty of other things you could do with it. :) I don't disagree with you that tools can be abused for non-intended purposes, but this software is being promoted for its intended purpose. The fix is stronger security protocols of course, but I couldn't resist the analogy - sorry.

Interesting idea on the both hands....

Only in MDU's, otherwise Fibe 16 is the top end which is provisioned with ADSL2+.