On 2003.06.16 12:31 Dustin Puryear wrote: > Another problem with the solution you want is that anyone can read your > email on the email server where your mail is being relayed. So using TLS to > encrypt the channel doesn't prevent Cox from reading your mail, whereas PGP > and S/MIME will. >
I think you forgot that my whole beef is that I can't run my own mail server and not need Cox relaying anything but packets. This prevents a good practice that would be useful to everyone who does want to encrypt their mail. Widespread use of bad practices does not make them any better. On 2003.06.16 12:28 John Hebert wrote: > > I can see Cox's business reasons for restricting home consumer services, and > I can't really fault them. But I'd like to know how much consumers would pay > for unfettered home connectivity? I have DSL via Eatel and can do pretty > much what I want with my home network: $35/month. Maybe the restrictions of > the big ISPs will make a market for broadband via wireless viable. I'd love to be on DSL from a reasonable company, but the Bells have promised stagnation and the business reason for this is AOL/MSN bullied them. They did not want to do this and I don't really think it's about spam so much as it's bout reducing Cox's competitive advantage over dial up and sucky contract services. By that reasoning, your Eatel might screw you under the same threat.
