On 2003.06.16 14:55 Scott Harney wrote > > But YOU CAN encrypt your mail. Cox's action DOES NOT prevent mail encryption. > > It doesn't even make using TLS all that difficult.(find someone to run TLS on > an alternate port and relay through them. I suppose they can > opportunistically use TLS to transport your mail to places that support it). > > I give up trying to make you understand this simple fact. And if you really > want TLS on Cox's server, just ask them. One of their engineers reads the > NOLUG list. The truth is, cox is do anything that dialup ISPs haven't > already done for years. Hell, I did it! > > I don't know why you're so stuck on this TLS thing. It's not particularly > useful in any case. > > And by the way, I agree with you on one account. I think Cox's job should be > to move packets. I want a way to opt out of their relay control. >
Well, I'll get a good idea of what's really out there soon enough, if we have the demo people are talking about. I'm stuck on TLS because I imagine everyone running a mail server and that being the best and most secure way to send mail. Why not, it only takes a 486 and the best software is free? Isn't distributed computing what the Internet is all about? If everyone did that and mail was echanged via TLS would it ever have to be decrypted on an intermediate machine? Don't you think it's a crime to make the cable system suck like dial up? It's the exact oposite of the way things should be. DHCP, blocked ports and all that, it's like putting other industries trying to put archaic restrictions through DRM on new media. We have this beautiful thing, why screw it up?
