> > The whole inet must be overhauled: secure by default!
>
> Unfortunately, this will not happen in the near future. The Internet was
> designed as a) a headless entity that could survive having multiple areas
> of it turned to air pollution by nuclear weapons and still survive, and b)
This is a
> > The whole inet must be overhauled: secure by default!
>
> Unfortunately, this will not happen in the near future. The Internet was
> designed as a) a headless entity that could survive having multiple areas
> of it turned to air pollution by nuclear weapons and still survive, and b)
This is
At 21:02 6.2.2001, Steve Robbins wrote:
What you say is true of today, but of course cars have had a much
longer history than computers. I've often wondered how the state of
computer technology of today compares with the state of automobile
technology of, say, the 1920s. (I don't know myself,
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 12:13:47PM -0500, Bradley M Alexander wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:32:16PM +0100, A. L. Meyers wrote:
>
> > No babble at all. Why don't we millions of e-mail users insist on
> > security? Why aren't ISPs offering number 3 default? Why do the users
> > have to do al
* Bradley M Alexander
| I'll tell you why this happens. For the same reason that users tolerate
| crappy M$ operating systems that have swiss cheese security and no
| stability. They have been conditioned this way. Because they think that
| this is the way that its supposed to happen and there's
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:32:16PM +0100, A. L. Meyers wrote:
> No babble at all. Why don't we millions of e-mail users insist on
> security? Why aren't ISPs offering number 3 default? Why do the users
> have to do all the work?
I'll tell you why this happens. For the same reason that users tol
At 21:02 6.2.2001, Steve Robbins wrote:
>What you say is true of today, but of course cars have had a much
>longer history than computers. I've often wondered how the state of
>computer technology of today compares with the state of automobile
>technology of, say, the 1920s. (I don't know myse
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 12:13:47PM -0500, Bradley M Alexander wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:32:16PM +0100, A. L. Meyers wrote:
>
> > No babble at all. Why don't we millions of e-mail users insist on
> > security? Why aren't ISPs offering number 3 default? Why do the users
> > have to do a
* Bradley M Alexander
| I'll tell you why this happens. For the same reason that users tolerate
| crappy M$ operating systems that have swiss cheese security and no
| stability. They have been conditioned this way. Because they think that
| this is the way that its supposed to happen and there's
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:32:16PM +0100, A. L. Meyers wrote:
> No babble at all. Why don't we millions of e-mail users insist on
> security? Why aren't ISPs offering number 3 default? Why do the users
> have to do all the work?
I'll tell you why this happens. For the same reason that users to
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 10:24:12PM -0400, Peter Cordes wrote:
> > they would botch it. they have already tried scaring everyone about
> > virus/worm problems yet everyone still uses MS Outlook.
>
> I think that has a lot to do with the fact that they don't explicitly say
> to run something els
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 10:24:12PM -0400, Peter Cordes wrote:
> > they would botch it. they have already tried scaring everyone about
> > virus/worm problems yet everyone still uses MS Outlook.
>
> I think that has a lot to do with the fact that they don't explicitly say
> to run something el
> I think that has a lot to do with the fact that they don't explicitly say
> to run something else, or give a URI for a different mail client. A news
> story that said, "... your email is insecure ... run this to make it
better
> http://debian.org/ :)", might get some people using non-outlook, e
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 03:05:04PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 12:10:02PM +1300, Matthew Sherborne wrote:
> >
> > The program runs off the floppy, requires a passphrase, and stores all user
> > information in DES encrypted files on the floppy. It tries not to let
> > anyth
> I think that has a lot to do with the fact that they don't explicitly say
> to run something else, or give a URI for a different mail client. A news
> story that said, "... your email is insecure ... run this to make it
better
> http://debian.org/ :)", might get some people using non-outlook,
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 03:05:04PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 12:10:02PM +1300, Matthew Sherborne wrote:
> >
> > The program runs off the floppy, requires a passphrase, and stores all user
> > information in DES encrypted files on the floppy. It tries not to let
> > anyt
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 12:10:02PM +1300, Matthew Sherborne wrote:
>
> The program runs off the floppy, requires a passphrase, and stores all user
> information in DES encrypted files on the floppy. It tries not to let
> anything get swapped or written to the host computer.
DES? anyway..
> Nobod
> 1) Because the vast majority of users are completely ignorant of security
> issues, or simply don't care.
It's true, I worked for a company that made an email client, which shipped
with a service, the client is for portable use (like hotmail) but not web
based.
The program runs off the floppy,
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 12:10:02PM +1300, Matthew Sherborne wrote:
>
> The program runs off the floppy, requires a passphrase, and stores all user
> information in DES encrypted files on the floppy. It tries not to let
> anything get swapped or written to the host computer.
DES? anyway..
> Nobo
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:32:16PM +0100, A. L. Meyers wrote:
> No babble at all. Why don't we millions of e-mail users insist on
> security? Why aren't ISPs offering number 3 default? Why do the users
> have to do all the work?
1) Because the vast majority of users are completely ignorant of s
> 1) Because the vast majority of users are completely ignorant of security
> issues, or simply don't care.
It's true, I worked for a company that made an email client, which shipped
with a service, the client is for portable use (like hotmail) but not web
based.
The program runs off the floppy,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 04 February 2001 21:17, Matthew Sherborne wrote:
> You gave me a brain wave :)
>
> Perhaps email security having four stages:
>
> 1 MIME
> 2 SSL
> 3 SSL + Encrypted storage on mail server
> 4 PGP/GPG/S-MIME
>
> I don't think anyone offers num
You gave me a brain wave :)
Perhaps email security having four stages:
1 MIME
2 SSL
3 SSL + Encrypted storage on mail server
4 PGP/GPG/S-MIME
I don't think anyone offers number 3.
I heard there was a PGP like WEB mail service where they generate your
private key for you and store it on there se
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:32:16PM +0100, A. L. Meyers wrote:
> No babble at all. Why don't we millions of e-mail users insist on
> security? Why aren't ISPs offering number 3 default? Why do the users
> have to do all the work?
1) Because the vast majority of users are completely ignorant of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 04 February 2001 21:17, Matthew Sherborne wrote:
> You gave me a brain wave :)
>
> Perhaps email security having four stages:
>
> 1 MIME
> 2 SSL
> 3 SSL + Encrypted storage on mail server
> 4 PGP/GPG/S-MIME
>
> I don't think anyone offers nu
You gave me a brain wave :)
Perhaps email security having four stages:
1 MIME
2 SSL
3 SSL + Encrypted storage on mail server
4 PGP/GPG/S-MIME
I don't think anyone offers number 3.
I heard there was a PGP like WEB mail service where they generate your
private key for you and store it on there s
> Dear Philippe,
>
> Mutt must be a female dog (no macho touch inteded). Technical people love it
> and, once you have it configured, it is nice to use. ... once ... once ...
> once in the future.
> I just got tired trying to get it configured and reverted to kmail.
>
> Anyway, this isn't my que
> Dear Philippe,
>
> Mutt must be a female dog (no macho touch inteded). Technical people love it
> and, once you have it configured, it is nice to use. ... once ... once ...
> once in the future.
> I just got tired trying to get it configured and reverted to kmail.
>
> Anyway, this isn't my qu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Friday 02 February 2001 19:08, Philippe BARNETCHE wrote:
> By the way,
> I still don't understand how to handle with mutt the mails that have been
> pgp signed with kmail.
>
> Philippe
>
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 07:03:39PM +0100, A . L . Meyers wrote:
> > ---
At 20:03 2.2.2001, A. L. Meyers wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Dear fellow Debianites,
People talk a lot about security on the net but my efforts to find an ISP
offering e. g. ssl-encrpypted e-mail services have been met by dismal
responses to date, even in the country with the thick
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 07:08:57PM +0100, Philippe BARNETCHE wrote:
> I still don't understand how to handle with mutt the mails that have been pgp
> signed with kmail.
Are you talking about verifying signatures?
I usually just pipe mine through gpg --verify...
| gpg --verify
Works for me. (T
By the way,
I still don't understand how to handle with mutt the mails that have been pgp
signed with kmail.
Philippe
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 07:03:39PM +0100, A . L . Meyers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> Dear fellow Debianites,
>
> People talk a lot about security on the ne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Dear fellow Debianites,
People talk a lot about security on the net but my efforts to find an ISP
offering e. g. ssl-encrpypted e-mail services have been met by dismal
responses to date, even in the country with the thickest computer population
(ratio computers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Friday 02 February 2001 19:08, Philippe BARNETCHE wrote:
> By the way,
> I still don't understand how to handle with mutt the mails that have been
> pgp signed with kmail.
>
> Philippe
>
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 07:03:39PM +0100, A . L . Meyers wrote:
> > --
At 20:03 2.2.2001, A. L. Meyers wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
>Dear fellow Debianites,
>
>People talk a lot about security on the net but my efforts to find an ISP
>offering e. g. ssl-encrpypted e-mail services have been met by dismal
>responses to date, even in the country with the
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 07:08:57PM +0100, Philippe BARNETCHE wrote:
> I still don't understand how to handle with mutt the mails that have been pgp signed
>with kmail.
Are you talking about verifying signatures?
I usually just pipe mine through gpg --verify...
| gpg --verify
Works for me. (T
By the way,
I still don't understand how to handle with mutt the mails that have been pgp signed
with kmail.
Philippe
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 07:03:39PM +0100, A . L . Meyers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> Dear fellow Debianites,
>
> People talk a lot about security on the n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Dear fellow Debianites,
People talk a lot about security on the net but my efforts to find an ISP
offering e. g. ssl-encrpypted e-mail services have been met by dismal
responses to date, even in the country with the thickest computer population
(ratio computers
38 matches
Mail list logo
