On 2003.06.16 09:16 Scott Harney wrote: > And Dustin is correct, very very very few providers use TLS.
Once upon a time, few people used email. That was not a good reason to not use it. > > Think about it. let's say you TLS the transactions between you and your > remote mailserver that you prefer to relay through. Great. That is great. It cuts down on my nosy cable neighbor's ability to read my mail. > But once the mail > leaves that relay server for it's finally destination, it's unencrypted. So > if COX supported TLS for you, the transaction between you and cox would be > encrypted. hooray. then Cox forwards the mail on your behalf. Chances are, > it's not encrypted. In most cases, it won't be. Let's suppose my mail program has this and I am the relay and I support this and my destination has a mail server that supports this. Does that not give me transparent encryption all the way through? Shouldn't we encourage this? Now that Cox forces me to use their mail server, can't they keep this from happening? That meat-head, John Ashcroft says that people should not have any expectations of privacy in their email and Carnivore is justified on these grounds. He's wrong for two reasons. First, email can be secured. Second, he has no business snooping in mail. Email will have few business uses unless it's privacy is secure. Privacy can only be secured if everything is encrypted. We should expect this to happen and work to make it so.
