On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Rick Smith wrote:
> How long do you think it will be until users of SA face the same
> consequences as the now infamous ORBZ case ?
>
> I'm sure that some lawyer out there could find a way to sue someone
> for running this package.
Absolutely. The American legal systems seem
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Olivier Nicole wrote:
>>unless all ISPs are "well-behaved" and block outbound
>>port 25 except to their own mail servers
>
> provided they have a decent architecture (that can handle the hundred
> thousand, or million email they send per day) they will end up with
> transpar
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 p
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 allow
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 an
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:54:47PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
| On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:48:27PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
| > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Jason Haar wrote:
| > > We have this situation here in New Zealand. Some ISPs have different
| > > service options - the cheapest option redir
