On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:11:08AM -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:11:59AM -0600, Paul Condon wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 02:56:40PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 14:02:29 +0200, Slavko wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dňa Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:02:18 +0100 Brian
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/31/2014 5:51 PM, Brian wrote:
>> [...]
>> I'm glad we can end this by both of us agreeing that "it simply depends
>> on how good the malware is."
>>
>>
>
> Yes, but the difference here is - sending to port 25 is pretty easy.
> Sending via
On 20140731_2251+0100, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 31 Jul 2014 at 15:34:46 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> > On 7/31/2014 3:09 PM, Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > The point of my remark was that malware can operate on port 25 so there
> > > is nothing to prevent it operating on port 587. I was actually agreei
On 7/31/2014 5:51 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 31 Jul 2014 at 15:34:46 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 7/31/2014 3:09 PM, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> The point of my remark was that malware can operate on port 25 so there
>>> is nothing to prevent it operating on port 587. I was actually agreeing
>>> wi
On Thu 31 Jul 2014 at 15:34:46 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/31/2014 3:09 PM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > The point of my remark was that malware can operate on port 25 so there
> > is nothing to prevent it operating on port 587. I was actually agreeing
> > with you when you said "Nothing".
>
> Y
On 7/31/2014 3:09 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 31 Jul 2014 at 14:43:11 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 7/31/2014 12:47 PM, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> One would expect the ISP's strategy to factor in the sophistication of
>>> malware. which is presumably sophisticated enough to be able to use port
>>> 2
On Thu 31 Jul 2014 at 14:43:11 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/31/2014 12:47 PM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > One would expect the ISP's strategy to factor in the sophistication of
> > malware. which is presumably sophisticated enough to be able to use port
> > 25.
>
> Which is why many ISPs now bloc
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:47:19 +0100
Brian wrote:
> On Thu 31 Jul 2014 at 17:37:21 +0100, Joe wrote:
>
>The preference is for
> > malware to use a primitive SMTP engine which is entirely separate
> > from the compromised system's email.
>
> I didn't know that. I don't envisage such an engine on m
On 7/31/2014 12:47 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 31 Jul 2014 at 10:52:39 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 7/31/2014 10:37 AM, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> The reason for doing it given is generally along the lines of:
>>>
>>>Much of the current use of port 25 is by computers that have been
>>>infec
On Thu 31 Jul 2014 at 17:37:21 +0100, Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:37:31 +0100
> Brian wrote:
>
> > What I do not understand is what prevents the malware (assuming it can
> > signicantly control the machine) from using the same authentication to
> > send spam as before. Isn't this back to
On Thu 31 Jul 2014 at 10:52:39 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/31/2014 10:37 AM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > The reason for doing it given is generally along the lines of:
> >
> >Much of the current use of port 25 is by computers that have been
> >infected by malware and are sending spam wit
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:37:31 +0100
Brian wrote:
>
> What I do not understand is what prevents the malware (assuming it can
> signicantly control the machine) from using the same authentication to
> send spam as before. Isn't this back to square 1?
>
>
I would assume it can, if it operates yo
On 7/31/2014 10:37 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 22:12:09 +0100, Joe wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:16:23 +0100
>> Brian wrote:
>>
>>> Port 25 then becomes used only for incoming messages to be sent to
>>> domains the server is responsible for? If so, that doesn't appear any
>>> di
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 22:12:09 +0100, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:16:23 +0100
> Brian wrote:
>
> > Port 25 then becomes used only for incoming messages to be sent to
> > domains the server is responsible for? If so, that doesn't appear any
> > different from the present situation. For re
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 19:57:52 +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 20:16:08 +0200, Slavko wrote:
> > Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:37:54 +0100 Brian
> > napísal:
> >
> > > Your observation that ISPs could also interfere with port 587 doesn't
> > > cheer me up. :)
> >
> > It is black side of t
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 19:16:08 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> But they also are not in any violation of any RFC's. No RFC says they
> have to provide port 25 connectivity to your system.
This is substantiated in RFC 5068
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5068
This document offers no recommenda
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:48:04 +0100
Darac Marjal wrote:
...
> encryption such as GPG. If you care about people seeing who you write
> to, then don't use e-mail.
Or use an anonymous remailer.
Celejar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscr
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 04:08:44PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/28/2014 3:51 PM, Brian wrote:
> > You never really answered my questiom. If you place something in a
> > public place, a mailserver, for example, why should it be a criminal
> > offence to look at it. If you did not want it to be
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:27:08 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> Yes, I know Exim can be configured to do a lot. But I have yet to see
> where it is advantageous to run a MTA on a residential connection, and
> know of a lot of reasons why it's bad.
>
> I do run Exim on several servers (actually I
On 7/29/2014 11:06 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 29 Jul 2014 at 10:31:23 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 7/29/2014 9:47 AM, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> No, I do not think that. I think that if the remote MTA accepted the
>>> mail then the remote MTA accepted that mail and can prove it.
>>>
>>
>> This is
On Tue 29 Jul 2014 at 10:31:23 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/29/2014 9:47 AM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > No, I do not think that. I think that if the remote MTA accepted the
> > mail then the remote MTA accepted that mail and can prove it.
> >
>
> This is where you are incorrect. All you know is
On 7/29/2014 5:22 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 28 iul 14, 17:05:56, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> But then if you have residential service, there really is no need to
>> have your own MTA (other than you want it).
>
> Running your own MTA can be beneficial even if it is not accessible from
> t
On 7/29/2014 9:47 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 19:16:08 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2014 6:36 PM, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> You are guaranteeing the remote MTA will have 100% uptime and sends
>>> mails and non-delivery messages in a timely fashion? And yes, knowing
>>> the mail
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 19:16:08 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/28/2014 6:36 PM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > You are guaranteeing the remote MTA will have 100% uptime and sends
> > mails and non-delivery messages in a timely fashion? And yes, knowing
> > the mail was accepted by the destination MTA is
Ahoj,
Dňa Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:22:38 +0300 Andrei POPESCU
napísal:
> On Lu, 28 iul 14, 17:05:56, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >
> > But then if you have residential service, there really is no need to
> > have your own MTA (other than you want it).
>
> Running your own MTA can be beneficial even if i
On Monday 28 July 2014 21:38:37 Brian wrote:
> > > You never really answered my questiom. If you place something in a
> > > public place, a mailserver, for example, why should it be a criminal
> > > offence to look at it. If you did not want it to be seen you have the
> > > solution at hand.
> >
>
On Lu, 28 iul 14, 17:05:56, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> But then if you have residential service, there really is no need to
> have your own MTA (other than you want it).
Running your own MTA can be beneficial even if it is not accessible from
the internet:
- queuing: some mail clients block while
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 07:21:36PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/28/2014 5:27 PM, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 16:08:44 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/28/2014 3:51 PM, Brian wrote:
> >>> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 21:08:02 +0200, Slavko wrote:
> >>>
> Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014
On 7/28/2014 5:27 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 16:08:44 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2014 3:51 PM, Brian wrote:
>>> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 21:08:02 +0200, Slavko wrote:
>>>
Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:57:52 +0100 Brian
napísal:
> Do you really mean "criminal"
On 7/28/2014 6:36 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 17:05:56 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2014 4:56 PM, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> Exim will definitely *receive* mail on multiple ports; that much I do
>>> know. Sending on other than port 25 would appear to contradict the idea
>>> that
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 17:05:56 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/28/2014 4:56 PM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > Exim will definitely *receive* mail on multiple ports; that much I do
> > know. Sending on other than port 25 would appear to contradict the idea
> > that MTAs only communicate over port 25. Bu
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 21:38:37 +0100
Brian wrote:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 22:00:00 +0200, Slavko wrote:
>
> > Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:51:31 +0100 Brian
> > napísal:
> >
> > > You never really answered my questiom. If you place something in a
> > > public place, a mailserver, for example, why sho
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 21:56:50 +0100
Brian wrote:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 16:05:11 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> > On 7/28/2014 1:16 PM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > > All my mail from home is sent directly using exim which, as far
> > > as I can make out will only send on port 25. Leaving aside what
>
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 16:08:44 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/28/2014 3:51 PM, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 21:08:02 +0200, Slavko wrote:
> >
> >> Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:57:52 +0100 Brian
> >> napísal:
> >>
> >>> Do you really mean "criminal"? Which countries are these which
> >>>
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:16:23 +0100
Brian wrote:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 10:34:03 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> > On 7/28/2014 9:56 AM, Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > How does the server tell the difference between talking to another
> > > server (which is acting as client) and what you call a "clie
On 7/28/2014 4:56 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 16:05:11 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2014 1:16 PM, Brian wrote:
>>
>>> All my mail from home is sent directly using exim which, as far as I can
>>> make out will only send on port 25. Leaving aside what you say below (my
>>> I
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 16:05:11 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/28/2014 1:16 PM, Brian wrote:
>
> > All my mail from home is sent directly using exim which, as far as I can
> > make out will only send on port 25. Leaving aside what you say below (my
> > ISP does not block outgoing port 25 traff
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 22:00:00 +0200, Slavko wrote:
> Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:51:31 +0100 Brian
> napísal:
>
> > You never really answered my questiom. If you place something in a
> > public place, a mailserver, for example, why should it be a criminal
> > offence to look at it. If you did not w
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:00:00PM +0200, Slavko wrote:
> Ahoj,
>
> Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:51:31 +0100 Brian
> napísal:
>
> > You never really answered my questiom. If you place something in a
> > public place, a mailserver, for example, why should it be a criminal
> > offence to look at it. If
On 7/28/2014 3:51 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 21:08:02 +0200, Slavko wrote:
>
>> Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:57:52 +0100 Brian
>> napísal:
>>
>>> Do you really mean "criminal"? Which countries are these which
>>> criminalise looking at something which is in a public place? Walking
>>> ro
On 7/28/2014 1:16 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 10:34:03 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2014 9:56 AM, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> How does the server tell the difference between talking to another
>>> server (which is acting as client) and what you call a "client"?
>>
>> It doesn't,
Ahoj,
Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:51:31 +0100 Brian
napísal:
> You never really answered my questiom. If you place something in a
> public place, a mailserver, for example, why should it be a criminal
> offence to look at it. If you did not want it to be seen you have the
> solution at hand.
Yes, i
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 21:08:02 +0200, Slavko wrote:
> Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:57:52 +0100 Brian
> napísal:
>
> > Do you really mean "criminal"? Which countries are these which
> > criminalise looking at something which is in a public place? Walking
> > round with my eyes closed and my brain clos
Ahoj,
Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:57:52 +0100 Brian
napísal:
> Do you really mean "criminal"? Which countries are these which
> criminalise looking at something which is in a public place? Walking
> round with my eyes closed and my brain closed down isn't an attracive
> prospect.
IMO, this is a com
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 20:16:08 +0200, Slavko wrote:
>
> Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:37:54 +0100 Brian
> napísal:
>
> > No need to be sorry. The simplification was fine. It's just that here
> > mutt and other MUAs connect to exim for direct mail delivery. I wanted
> > to clarify that servers can als
Ahoj,
Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:37:54 +0100 Brian
napísal:
> No need to be sorry. The simplification was fine. It's just that here
> mutt and other MUAs connect to exim for direct mail delivery. I wanted
> to clarify that servers can also be clients.
It is named as "with smarthost", it can be eas
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:11:59AM -0600, Paul Condon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 02:56:40PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 14:02:29 +0200, Slavko wrote:
> >
> > > Dňa Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:02:18 +0100 Brian
> > > napísal:
> > >
> > > > He could check with nc.
> > > >
> > > >
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 17:37:19 +0200, Slavko wrote:
> Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:56:40 +0100 Brian
> napísal:
>
> > How does the server tell the difference between talking to another
> > server (which is acting as client) and what you call a "client"?
[RFC abstracts snipped. Thanks for them. I'll
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 10:34:03 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/28/2014 9:56 AM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > How does the server tell the difference between talking to another
> > server (which is acting as client) and what you call a "client"?
>
> It doesn't, but operation is quite different. MTA's
On 2014-07-28, John Hasler wrote:
> Slavko writes:
>> If mail provider doesn't provides the 587 port (yes, it seems, that
>> the Deutsche Telekom know nothing about them), or (obsolete) 465 port
>> there isn't another way how to send encrypted emails.
>
> TLS only protects you against being impers
Slavko writes:
> If mail provider doesn't provides the 587 port (yes, it seems, that
> the Deutsche Telekom know nothing about them), or (obsolete) 465 port
> there isn't another way how to send encrypted emails.
TLS only protects you against being impersonated and against your
messages being inte
On 2014-07-28, Paul E Condon wrote:
>
> Well no, not using 25, but I am using this thread to test if I have
> fixed a different problem in my email setup.
> OK to not respond to this denial (;-)
>
Much more clever than one of those maddening "test" posts.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us
On 2014-07-28, Paul Condon wrote:
>
> I have read that without TLS the email file, and my password are
> sent over the internet in the clear, un-encrypted, and that is
> 'clearly' a BAD THING.
True, but I would think (and here I have the enormous liberty that
comes from thinking in an almost tot
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 02:02:29PM +0200, Slavko wrote:
> Ahoj,
>
> Dňa Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:02:18 +0100 Brian
> napísal:
>
> > On Sun 27 Jul 2014 at 10:03:29 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> >
> > > My current best guess is you are attempting to connect to gmail's
> > > servers on port 25 and y
Ahoj,
Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 09:35:39 -0600 Paul Condon
napísal:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:37:57PM +, Curt wrote:
> > On 2014-07-28, Joel Rees wrote:
> > >
> > > (Piques my curiosity.)
> > >
> > >> They have made
> > >> it clear in that they do not require or use TLS.
> > >
> > > (Wonderin
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:35:39AM -0600, Paul Condon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:37:57PM +, Curt wrote:
> > On 2014-07-28, Joel Rees wrote:
> > >
> > > (Piques my curiosity.)
> > >
> > >> They have made
> > >> it clear in that they do not require or use TLS.
> > >
> > > (Wondering wha
Ahoj,
Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:56:40 +0100 Brian
napísal:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 14:02:29 +0200, Slavko wrote:
>
> > Dňa Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:02:18 +0100 Brian
> > napísal:
> >
> > > He could check with nc.
> > >
> > > brian@desktop:~$ nc smtp.gmail.com 25
> > > 220 mx.google.com ESMTP 19
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:37:57PM +, Curt wrote:
> On 2014-07-28, Joel Rees wrote:
> >
> > (Piques my curiosity.)
> >
> >> They have made
> >> it clear in that they do not require or use TLS.
> >
> > (Wondering what TLS has to do with strangeness in this case.)
I have read that without TLS t
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 02:56:40PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 14:02:29 +0200, Slavko wrote:
>
> > Dňa Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:02:18 +0100 Brian
> > napísal:
> >
> > > He could check with nc.
> > >
> > > brian@desktop:~$ nc smtp.gmail.com 25
> > > 220 mx.google.com ESMTP 19sm410
On 7/28/2014 9:56 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 14:02:29 +0200, Slavko wrote:
>
>> Dňa Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:02:18 +0100 Brian
>> napísal:
>>
>>> He could check with nc.
>>>
>>> brian@desktop:~$ nc smtp.gmail.com 25
>>> 220 mx.google.com ESMTP 19sm41008233wjz.3 - gsmtp
>>>
>>
>> AFAI
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 14:02:29 +0200, Slavko wrote:
> Dňa Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:02:18 +0100 Brian
> napísal:
>
> > He could check with nc.
> >
> > brian@desktop:~$ nc smtp.gmail.com 25
> > 220 mx.google.com ESMTP 19sm41008233wjz.3 - gsmtp
> >
>
> AFAIK, the port 25 have to used only for (in
On 2014-07-28, Joel Rees wrote:
>
> (Piques my curiosity.)
>
>> They have made
>> it clear in that they do not require or use TLS.
>
> (Wondering what TLS has to do with strangeness in this case.)
>
Maybe what mutt has to do with vlc.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debi
Ahoj,
Dňa Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:02:18 +0100 Brian
napísal:
> On Sun 27 Jul 2014 at 10:03:29 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
> > My current best guess is you are attempting to connect to gmail's
> > servers on port 25 and your ISP has blocked connections to port 25
> > for any server except their
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Paul E Condon
wrote:
> I've known for a long while that there was something
> strange about sending mail via my ISP.
(Piques my curiosity.)
> They have made
> it clear in that they do not require or use TLS.
(Wondering what TLS has to do with strangeness in thi
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Bret Busby wrote:
> [...] The SMTP server does not show, as involving TLS (I have no
> idea, as to what is TLS, only that it is something that has to be
> addressed in the INBOX path),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security
What we used to call Sec
On Sun 27 Jul 2014 at 07:49:47 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> I think I may have found a fix for this. I found some instructions
> which allowed me to check whether or not I had just done a step
> correctly before
> going on to the next step. At the end a window popped up announcing that
> I had co
I think I may have found a fix for this. I found some instructions
which allowed me to check whether or not I had just done a step
correctly before
going on to the next step. At the end a window popped up announcing that
I had completed the setting up correctly, but that it might take up to 2 days
On Sun 27 Jul 2014 at 10:03:29 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> My current best guess is you are attempting to connect to gmail's servers on
> port 25 and your ISP has blocked connections to port 25 for any server except
> their own, in which case port 587 should work instead.
He could check with
On Sat 26 Jul 2014 at 19:56:12 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> I've known for a long while that there was something
> strange about sending mail via my ISP. They have made
> it clear in that they do not require or use TLS. It
You have to authenticate yourself when you join your ISP's network. No
fu
What precise instructions did you follow / what configuration have you supplied
mutt to try and send via gmail?
My current best guess is you are attempting to connect to gmail's servers on
port 25 and your ISP has blocked connections to port 25 for any server except
their own, in which case port 5
On 27/07/2014, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 27/07/2014, Paul E Condon wrote:
>> I've known for a long while that there was something
>> strange about sending mail via my ISP. They have made
>> it clear in that they do not require or use TLS. It
>> occurs to me that perhaps my computer does not have
>>
On 27/07/2014, Paul E Condon wrote:
> I've known for a long while that there was something
> strange about sending mail via my ISP. They have made
> it clear in that they do not require or use TLS. It
> occurs to me that perhaps my computer does not have
> installed the appropriate certs to functi
I've known for a long while that there was something
strange about sending mail via my ISP. They have made
it clear in that they do not require or use TLS. It
occurs to me that perhaps my computer does not have
installed the appropriate certs to function with TLS.
How would I ever have known they w
73 matches
Mail list logo
