--Boundary-02=_09K7+++pRpT/dvY Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline
On Sunday 15 June 2003 12:33 pm, will hill wrote: > On 2003.06.14 17:09 Dustin Puryear wrote: > > Why can't you encrypt your email if you are relaying mail through Cox? > > Because they "don't support" anything but Lookout Express that lacks TLS?= =20 > Read my "NEWS about Cox mail" to understand my objections. Just because you can't get your mail client of choice to work doesn't mean = 1)=20 that it doesn't or won't or 2) that others will. =20 Support means "tech support". nothing more. nothing less. There is NOTHNG= =20 special about pointing to an SMTP server in any mail client. If there is,= =20 that client is inherently broken. I use a local postfix server pointing to= =20 cox as a smarthost because I _want_ to. I was just as able to point no les= s=20 that 4 separate "unsupported" mail clients directly at their email server. TLS? whoopee. If you want to encrypt your mail in transit fully you must u= se=20 somethinig like GPG. I'm thinking you don't understand the different betwe= en=20 SSL transport between to point to point mail servers and something like GPG. Methinks your dislike of Cox the organization is getting you mixed up on th= e=20 technical side. =2D-=20 Scott Harney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "...and one script to rule them all." gpg key fingerprint=3D7125 0BD3 8EC4 08D7 321D CEE9 F024 7DA6 0BC7 94E5 --Boundary-02=_09K7+++pRpT/dvY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+7K908CR9pgvHlOURAuHAAKCGM8QZsY6Vrf8xosybqWNDCbAG0QCglHHy CbbJLwEWe+zV+B4pHChjD7g= =jSLg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_09K7+++pRpT/dvY--
