--Boundary-02=_IFd7+fk6yURETqi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline
On Monday 16 June 2003 09:18 am, will hill wrote: > You are right, I don't understand. Tell me that transparent and usefull > encryption is possible and can't be broken by Cox's smtp server and I won= 't > worry that they force me to use it. What is it that you think TLS gets you? specifically. And Dustin is correct, very very very few providers use TLS. There's littl= e=20 point in transit encryption like this for email. Most people want to prote= ct=20 the email _content_ which is a different matter entirely. That requires GP= G=20 or S/MIME.=20 Think about it. let's say you TLS the transactions between you and your=20 remote mailserver that you prefer to relay through. Great. But once the ma= il=20 leaves that relay server for it's finally destination, it's unencrypted. S= o=20 if COX supported TLS for you, the transacation between you and cox would be= =20 encrypted. hooray. then Cox forwards the mail on your behalf. Chances are= ,=20 it's not encrypted. In most cases, it won't be. =20 =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=_IFd7+fk6yURETqi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+7dFI8CR9pgvHlOURAsZfAJ9PRmL5gBGWVMEPlLuSJX/9zg0JPACdEWZc Lvb6tNxaIC69yxVyhpoxflI= =l2Wg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_IFd7+fk6yURETqi--
