ePost is dire, it's barely functional for clients, but for mailers it is verging on being unusable. I've been setting up an ePost Connect service for my employer, and there are weird and unforgivable bugs - such as not being able to send to hyphenated domain names (!) I hate the product as a client too, it mangles bills, sends out notifications late or never, and it is tied to a regular email address so offers no real advantage to having the mailer email you directly. Oh, and my address is ::1 and not 127.0.0.1 :)

The solution is Google Apps for your own domain. $5 a month per user, 25Gb space, IMAP, no advertising (which is where most of the privacy issues arise), and most importantly, no lock-in as you can switch your email to a different provider at any time without changing email address. As you said, Gmail is by far the best for searching old email. I haven't run an email server for years.

Not sure why the parent comment is modded "Funny"... This is the most significant change made today, not the fancy Javascript stuff. Google has been set to block "NSFW" searches by default - this is pure censorship by Google based on unknown values.

So now you can't search for the UK city of Scunthorpe, and some people with text strings in their name which some Google droid has added to their unaccountable blacklist have also simply disappeared from the new regular search results.

Google Search is becoming like Apple's products - sanitized according to respect the arbitrary moral values of an up-tight, unaccountable elite.

This is why I pay Google for handling my email. I use Google Apps Premier Edition with my own domain. $50 per user per year, it's cheaper than paying for Office/Outlook, there's 25Gb of space per user, and NO advertising. Using my own domain means there is no lock-in, I can use IMAP and switch to another provider any time.

OpenBSD's forked version of Apache 1.3.29 already fulfills this role.

The defence team *only* launched accusations of bias because they lost - the presumed bias of the judge could have been brought up before the case was heard, but the lawyers chose to ignore it. They were fully-aware of this apparent "bias" well before they brought up the subject.

It reminds me of a case a while back in a different jurisdiction where the defence claimed the result was flawed because the judge had fallen asleep. The appeal failed, because the appeal judges said that the defence should have woken up the judge if they thought it was important.