On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:48:27PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote: > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Jason Haar wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:00:05PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote: > >> Right up to the point that someone institutes the architecture for > >> secure mail relay that the combination of TLS and certificate > >> verification provide -- /that/ can't be transparently proxied... > > > > Ahhh - but they wouldn't be allowed to do that under their contract > > would they :-) > > Oh, I see your point now. > > > We have this situation here in New Zealand. Some ISPs have different > > service options - the cheapest option redirects all web traffic and > > blocks SMTP (I guess they could have redirected it too). You pay extra > > for more functionality... (i.e. "what? You need to run a SMTP > > client??, that makes you a business customer... cha-CHING!) > > Here in Australia any server at all makes you a business customer. I > have been doing that so long I keep forgetting that there are other > options. ;) > > Daniel
I vaguely remember something in my ISP's terms of service something about not running servers. They certainly don't try to stop me. (Probably because they are too lazy, and it really doesn't benefit them) -- Duncan Findlay _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
