They also block port 21 even though they don't admit it. The link worked BTW.
-- Brad Bendily - CNA On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Adam J. Melancon wrote: > Has anyone seen this link with all the ports that cox blocks? > > http://www.expressresponse.com/cgi-bin/progsnp/cox_isp/srchjnnp?search_type=vdocument&search_input=1570&session_id=1038942585.8133.7&search_erproduct=&question=ports+blocked > > I hope this link works. ;) > > > > Adam J. Melancon > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: will hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: GPG does not provide "end to end encryption", but only mail > conte nt encryption was RE: [brlug-general] Cox and smtp pain today. > Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:31:05 -0500 > > On 2003.06.17 09:48 John Hebert wrote: > > Ray, > > > > Just to be technically clear and correct for those who may not know, GPG > > does not provide end to end mail encryption, but only mail content > > encryption. Even if you use GPG to encrypt the contents of your mail > > message, it is possible for people (mail sysadmins, bad guys sniffing, > etc.) > > to see the message headers (mail recipient's address, etc.). > > That and it stands out like a sore thumb when you only take the trouble to > encrypt 1% of your mail. > > > > > But, as others have pointed out, TLS only encrypts the connections to the > > mail server. Anyone with access to your mail spool can read your > unencrypted > > email content. TLS is only a partial security solution and requires the > user > > to trust the mail server admin. > > Let's see, the only person with access to the mail spooler on my computer is > ... me. If everyone ran their own mail and had TLS, everyone would have end > to end encryption. Sure, admins here and there could see who I emailed, but > that' not as important as them not getting at what I'm up to when I don't > want them to know. > > Some people don't think that's possible or practical. They are correct only > when they confine themselves to Microsoft and dial up limits. Cable now > reaches the majority of US homes. There's no reason everyone could not have > an always on connection with a fixed IP address. Free software is secure > and has default settings that make mail work without much effort on the > user's part. Oh yeah, a computer running free software is just as or more > reliable than the dinky little computer that runs the cable modem itself. > The only trouble with mail I've had has been from Cox being bullied into > making their cable service look and act like a dial up service. > > > > > > So if you want true message security, don't use email at all. Anyone know > of > > a good alternative? Are there any free|OSS encrypted IM apps out there? > > > > That is the big problem here. If you can't trust that your email is > private, email loses much of it's value. > > I like the idea of substituting an IM program for an email program =;) It > kinda shows how email could be done. Why is it that people think that it's > OK to have these IM programs but not email? Why is it that people think you > can secure IM but not email? Why do people think that you need a relay for > mail but not IM? > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >
