----------
> From: Jeff Woods <jeff@delta.com>
> To: ntisp@emerald.iea.com
> Subject: RE: post.office 3.0 is coming
> Date: Thursday, December 19, 1996 4:21 PM
>
> At 09:56 PM 3/20/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >With regard to the Spam filter...I understand the pain you all are
feeling.
> >For fun I run a couple of mailing lists and am pretty active in the
> >internet community...spam is something we all have to deal with on a
daily
> >basis. I wish I could fix that one Right Now. But we have to fix it so
it
> >stays fixed...and I assure you that our best dev guys are working on it.
>
> Lee, this is BULLSHIT. The obvious fix is to pull 2.0's original source
out
> of revision control, and put a SIMPLE option in there to limit the use of
> the SMTP smart host to within a list of networks. If the mailer program
> sending something to the SMTP smart host doesn't reside in a network in
the
> list, then THE MAIL IS BOUNCED.
>
> I am a programmer by first trade, and could code this into your source
code
> MYSELF in two hours, having never seen the code. The fact that you
refuse
> to do this, and make a FAST fix as Microsoft and Netscape have done, is
the
> PRIMARY reason I am leaving post.office. The pricing issue is
incidental.
>
> You have a serious security flaw. You have refused to fix it in a timely
> manner.
>
> Case closed. Goodbye post.office. Hello, "campaign to keep people from
> making the same mistake I did". You made your bed. Now lie in it.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> NTISP Mailing List listserver@emerald.iea.com