--Boundary-02=_6Ci7+WsUMHnIg7b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline
On Monday 16 June 2003 03:11 pm, will hill wrote: > 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 bette= r. But YOU CAN encrypt your mail. Cox's action DOES NOT prevent mail encryptio= n. =20 It doesn't even make using TLS all that difficult.(find someone to run TLS = on=20 an alternate port and relay through them. I suppose they can=20 opportunistically use TLS to transport your mail to places that support it)= =2E =20 I give up trying to make you understand this simple fact. And if you reall= y=20 want TLS on Cox's server, just ask them. One of their engineers reads the= =20 NOLUG list. The truth is, cox is do anything that dialup ISPs haven't=20 already done for years. Hell, I did it! =20 I don't know why you're so stuck on this TLS thing. It's not particularly= =20 useful in any case. And by the way, I agree with you on one account. I think Cox's job should b= e=20 to move packets. I want a way to opt out of their relay control. =2D-=20 Scott Harney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "...and one script to rule them all." gpg key fingerprint=3D7125 0BD3 8EC4 08D7 321D CEE9 F024 7DA6 0BC7 94E5 --Boundary-02=_6Ci7+WsUMHnIg7b Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+7iC68CR9pgvHlOURArQaAJ9awn56DuWI0FQBgCDItbuvkPXOLACePtzD u2VhpPaSE9iQd95v3o6v6Us= =BzeL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_6Ci7+WsUMHnIg7b--
