Es ist doch offensichtlich, dass da ein Postmaster bei der Spambekämpfung etwas aggressiv war und harte Defaults genommen hat, die für eine Behörde nicht taugen. Diskriminierend ist das nicht, sondern einfach ein falsch. Schreibt ein Email, ruft an, schreibt einen Fax oder irgendwas. Aber blast das nicht so auf.

Es Leute in diesem Land, die wirklich mit Diskriminierung zu kämpfen haben. Mit dieser Meldung macht Ihr Euch selbst lächerlich und die wirklich diskriminierten zu Simulanten.

It doesn't matter if the discrimination is direct or as an misguided part of an attempt to curb socially unacceptable behaviour.

I will explain using a parable. Imagine this hypothetical situation: someone wants to fight crime. He figures out, that there is more crime in black population than in white population. Therefore he won't admit blacks to his office, because it would increase the probability a crime will happen in the office.

The situation with the SMTP is the same. The admin employs SORBS, which already on the first page states in big letters that dynamic addresses are blocked. SORBS got this unfortunate idea of blocking dynamic addresses probably from observation that more spam comes from dynamic addresses than from static ones.

If you are black and discrimination in the hypothetical situation happens to you, you may decide to not complain directly to the office, because you perceive the incident as a personal insult. Another reason to complain directly higher is that the problem doesn't affect only you personally, but the whole category/class you are member of. Therefore the problem is more serious than a personal-level problem.

Publicizing the problem in such case increases the probability for the problem to be solved, because the whole affected group is likely to exert pressure on the problem to be solved.

1. The e-mail server operator can easily read the files that are stored on the disk during the process. My setup brings a little more privacy, because reading passing traffic is more complicated.
2. If the delivery fails and the e-mail server fails to pass me the failure message or is misconfigured, I will think the e-mail was delivered and it actually wouldn't be. This way I get message about delivery failure with higher reliability.
3. The laptop is being carried periodically every day between home and work, which are connected to different providers. That can bring additional problems which I cannot imagine at the moment.

The availaility of bypass measure however doesn't change anything on the principle . If we should use a parable, then imagine following theoretical situation. A government bureau in some state is refusing to accept paper forms brought by black citizens. Then a black citizen asks his white friend to deliver the form, in which case the bureau accepts it.

I understand when a private person sets rules for acceptance of e-mail, however strange they are. If he discriminates anyone, then it's not a problem. But I think state body should be careful to avoid this behaviour. --clock

No problem, I am doing the same. Just use laptop-netconf. There, you can also adjust your MTA configuration.
--
Kühe geben keine Milch, die Bauern nehmen sie ihnen weg!

Der Effekt ist aber nicht, dass man glaubt, ein fieser Spamfilter sei ein Fall für den Bunderat, sondern dass man glaubt, dass Apartheid ja wohl ein ähnliches Simulantengeschwafel sei. Das ist nicht beabsichtigt und deshalb ist das Posting contraproduktiv.

Your argument about RFC violation and resulting fair handling by the SMTP server therefore doesn't apply. You could have checked this simply by host(x) 84.72.63.231.

But I think the actual state of things can be easily verified by telnet mailgate1.admin.ch 25 and typing the SMTP-compliant commands manually.

And got: 250 Ok: queued as C2C1A1C00084
Doesn't seem the server cares what's in the EHLO. I was coming from probably static address from green.ch. I don't have currently access to my dynamic cablecom address. Can someone try the same from a dynamic IP on cablecom please?

Merriam Webster: "arbitrary 1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law 3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will " According to my opinion, rejection of my e-mail by the state organ was arbitrary ("based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something"), therefore the state organ violated the Swiss Constitution.

Personally, I think DUL based blocking is bad and useless in the long run. There are already botnets that send their mails using the respective ISPs official mail server. However, I doubt that such blocking is unconstitutional.

The government does not reject your mails in particular, nor does it reject all mails from users with dynamic IP adresses. Rather, it requires users of dynamic IP adresses to send their mails indirectly. This is an additional requirement imposed solely on such users, but there is a technical reason behin it, albeit a bad one. Thus the blocking is not arbitrary.

Persönlich bin ich der Meinung, das Mailblocks auf Basis von Dial Up Listen schlecht und langfristig nutzlos sind. Bereits gibt es Botnets, die Mails über den offiziellen Mailserver des jeweiligen Providers versenden. Jedoch bezweifle ich, dass der Block verfassungswidrig ist.

Die Behörde blockiert nicht speziell deine Mails, und auch nicht alle Mails von Nutzern dynamischer IPs. Vielmehr verlangt sie von den Nutzern dynamischer IPs, dass sie ihre Mails indirekt versenden. Dies ist eine zusätzliche Anforderung, die nur an diese Nutzer gestellt wird, aber es gibt einen technischen Grund dafür, wenn auch ein schlechter. Folglich ist der Block nicht willkürlich.

--
GPL ist der Versuch, den Ring gegen Sauron einzusetzen.

Another parable showing ridiculosity of your argumentation: "We don't allow people from Aargau to our parking garage, because AG (Achtung Gefahr) are knowh to drive badly. It's a technical reason to protect the equipment of our garage to be bumped by a car. We are just requiring AG people to park in the outside parking lot."

Sending mail directly from a dial up link may safely be considered to be a very special case (most users don't know it's even possible). It may even be considered to be technically broken, as bounces sometimes don't reach the original sender. On the other hand, most SPAM today is directly sent from a dial up link. Thus, we have a technical reason, why the probability of such mails being SPAM is extremely high (about 99%).

Your parables cite no such reason. They are based on bias or statistical "proof". A decision based on that alone would indeed be arbitrary.

Please note that I agree with you that the block is a bad idea.

--
GPL ist der Versuch, den Ring gegen Sauron einzusetzen.