Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 11:16:18AM +0900
Quoting Peter Evans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > SkyDeep ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Does anybody have an open-source alternative? I hate to say this on the > > qpopper list, but I'm not terribly impressed with the software. I know > > it's freeware, but it's supported by a rather large commercial company, and > > you'd think they could give the community some indication as to what works > > and doesn't work - it's not like we're using weird hardware/software > > configurations! > > Is there another POP3 server that may be more reliable and secure? And > > doesn't have 1+MB footprint ta boot? Are there alternative encryption > > configurations I can run with qpopper that will give my clients secure > > e-mail? > > > I am appalled that I might have to bust out some low-level trace debugger > > to find out if I can run freakin secure POP3 connections! Oh come on. I certainly recommmend tcpdump when trying to deal with the occasional odd problem where I need to see the protocol. SSLDUMP just lets me see what's going on in the SSL stream. Really handy. Don't be afraid. > Considering that email is transmitted as clear text by the SMTP > protocol, I think you are wasting your time. What possible rationale > is there for last mile encryption when its travelled the intervening > N miles as clear text? So I should turn off my SMTP/TLS and my IPSec tunnels? Sorry, in a corp's mail that's inside an infrastructure until a user pulls it over the 'net via POP or IMAP, the first time it hits the clear air is then. Secure it. I've used SSL and QPopper and IMAP for a really long time. With Stunnel. Try that as an alternative. It might just help you debug your problem (using it in front of the server or as part of the client test setup).
