"SMTP has outlived its usefulness" (was: Forwarding services)

Posted Jan 17, 2026 15:21 UTC (Sat) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
In reply to: "SMTP has outlived its usefulness" (was: Forwarding services) by pizza
Parent article: A note for MXroute users

If the government imposes age restrictions, then it has a duty to enable those restrictions in as non-privacy-violating a way as possible.

Just because government in the USA is completely corrupt and dysfunctional, and the entire society thinks only about profit and nothing else, it doesn't mean that's the case everywhere, as kleptog commented.

to post comments

"SMTP has outlived its usefulness" (was: Forwarding services)

Posted Jan 17, 2026 15:54 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (2 responses)

> Just because government in the USA is completely corrupt and dysfunctional, and the entire society thinks only about profit and nothing else, it doesn't mean that's the case everywhere,

I have to laugh here at the implication that governments elsewhere (I guess you mean in the EU?) are not corrupt and dysfunctional (under some threshold that means they can deliver stuff sensibly). Especially as I live in Ireland.

"SMTP has outlived its usefulness" (was: Forwarding services)

Posted Jan 17, 2026 18:58 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> corrupt and dysfunctional

I duuno about Ireland, but over here in the UK I would say our biggest problem isn't government, but an incompetent and biased gutter press.

I think it was today's Daily Mail - full of biased opinion pieces against Labour masquerading as news. I'm not a fan of Starmer - and I'm very much not a Labour person - but given that the guy has spent most of his professional career dealing with lynch mobs I think I trust him to try and do the right thing.

Given that I'm right of centre, why is it that the two politicians I admire most are both Labour? Because I trust them to be honest and to put their people above their politics.

Cheers,
Wol

"SMTP has outlived its usefulness" (was: Forwarding services)

Posted Jan 17, 2026 20:02 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

The UK is perhaps less corrupt. However, in some ways, that's because the UK political classes and establishment have over the decades (century+?) constructed a system of the most high-class and sophisticated corruption, where the political classes are still bought off but via unimpeachable means. None of this shabby, direct handing of cash to policians in return for a favour - like in those unsophisticated former colonies. Oh no.. the British have a better class of corruption than that.

Politician makes decisions benefiting a donor. Politician some years later leaves office. Politician - after the requisite 2 years demanded by the ministerial code - becomes a director of the company (or some little subsidiary) of his donor, collecting a nice regular remuneration for what is undoubtedly a most demanding role requiring significant dedication of time! Unimpeachable, all strictly above board, all quite proper. And most definitely not corruption. Yet, the politician did the bidding of the donor and was (in some way, at some time) rewarded for it.

The sophistication of corruption in the British government was explored fairly regularly in "Yes, Minister!" (what /gold/ that series was, and incredible how relevant it still is - should be compulsory viewing) - though can't think of specific examples right now.