On Monday 16 June 2003 02:51 pm, will hill wrote: > > TLS does NOT get you there. If you want email privacy, you MUST use > > something like GPG. TLS is not good enough and does not solve this > > problem for email. > > That's what I thought, Cox's move will prevent a good practice. TLS may be > rare and it may not be good enough, but it's better than what we've got and > what Cox would keep.
I think your distaste for all things Cox is getting in the way of your logic here. TLS does not solve the same problem as GPG or S/MIME. You gain very little using it and it does nothing to solve the problems you've desribed thus far. Cox is no better or worse than any other ISP in this regard. If you want transport security, you really need it across the board. ie. you want IPSEC built into the IP layer itself which is one of the potential benefits of IP version 6. it's also a benefit of Freeswan IPSEC in IPv4 and the new opportunistic encryption capability. nothing prevents you from using that. IPv6 is experimental, but 4-6 tunnels are quite usable. Unfortunately, Linux's support for IPv6 IPSEC is currently limited. If you want to hide the source and destination of your email through some other means, things get significantly more difficult. you're talking about using something like mixmaster. What you need to understand is just what the threat is and what you're trying to protect against. There are many many ways around Cox's blocking of outbound 25 if you're so inclined. -- Scott Harney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "...and one script to rule them all." gpg key fingerprint=7125 0BD3 8EC4 08D7 321D CEE9 F024 7DA6 0BC7 94E5
