# Why issue certificate for max.ru forbidden by policy?

**URL:** <https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/why-issue-certificate-for-max-ru-forbidden-by-policy/248143>\
**Category:** Help\
**Created:** [June 12, 2026, 1:42pm UTC](https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/why-issue-certificate-for-max-ru-forbidden-by-policy/248143 "2026-06-12T13:42:08Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![petercooperjr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/letsencrypt/user_avatar/community.letsencrypt.org/petercooperjr/32/84698_2.png) [@petercooperjr](https://community.letsencrypt.org/u/petercooperjr)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2026, 3:36pm UTC](https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/why-issue-certificate-for-max-ru-forbidden-by-policy/248143/7 "2026-06-12T15:36:20Z")

</div>

> [@dextercd](#):
>
> On the 4th of this month the Let's Encrypt subscriber agreement was updated, with new text added relating to sanctions.

🤯 ‼

I would have expected a change of the subscriber agreement to be mentioned in the ISRG email newsletter, or blog, or at least a forum post here. And the only real change is that additional clause about sanctions, hmm? That's… interesting. Between that and [the subtle change in their transparency report](https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/isrg-may-have-received-a-national-security-letter-or-fisa-court-order/246749) it makes me rather curious if _something_ interesting involving the feds happened, though. Though there isn't really any evidence for anything beyond a scraped-together conspiracy theory.

* * *

The subscriber agreement, both before and after, says this about updates:

> In addition, major changes will be flagged with a new Subscriber Agreement version number in the ACME protocol, so You may be able to configure Your ACME Client Software to notify You of such changes.

Are there any ACME clients that implement such a feature?

---

_[View the full topic](https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/why-issue-certificate-for-max-ru-forbidden-by-policy/248143)._