> as a .mac clone/replacement. And, it's probably more appropriate to think > of their product in that light (a comprehensive package that an ISP would > use for the parts of their service that aren't physical link related) than > merely as a POP or IMAP daemon. >
true..it's just..i dont know, mixing services..kind of brings everything closer to single-point-of-failure mode. maybe that's what bothers me the most. > > But, it is another way of attacking the POP and IMAP problem, which is what > the poster asked for. > agreed. an option. whether it's the best option, well, that's up to whatever the user wants to do and is willing to give up, is trade for gaining --Tony .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-. Anthony J. Biacco Network Administrator/Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.asteroid-b612.org "Every day should be a good day to die" -DJM .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
