It never ceases to amaze me that some companies will move forward with actions that they know will give them a horrible reputation. Does the potential for short-term financial gain outweigh the benefits of a good long-term reputation? Verisign, SCO, and Postini come to mind as examples.

I can't stand the current spam filtering/AV email service that we use right now (Mailwatch...ugh.), but should we change to Postini--a supposedly superior service--knowing how slimy some of their actions have been? That's a rhetorical question, of course, but I think it makes the point. I prefer to do business with good companies with good products, not bad companies with good products.

Based on some offline comments I've decided to clarify my remarks. I don't think Postini is necessarily slimy and I shouldn't have mentioned them in the same sentence as Verisign and SCO, who are verifiably slimy. I should have phrased my remarks differently because I don't _know_ that Postini is slimy yet. Postini's patent issue (do a Google search to get more info) is suspicious, and _possibly_ indicative of a slimy tactic. However, there may be some completely valid reasons for their actions and I suppose we shouldn't judge them too harshly yet. Regardless of their reasons, it gives the appearance that they're not satisfied with simple competition and may try to negatively affect the competition through legal means. If they do that, then they're slimy. Until then, I suppose we (I) shouldn't make hasty judgments. John --