On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 08:46:13PM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> On 9/12/19 6:57 pm, Reco wrote:
> > ll it takes is to look at APNIC record with whois.
> > Shows your ISP and a city it's operating at.
> > I could dig deeper, but I'm lazy.
> Thanks Andrei
>
>
> I got 3 addresses
> 2 of them
On 9/12/19 6:57 pm, Reco wrote:
ll it takes is to look at APNIC record with whois.
Shows your ISP and a city it's operating at.
I could dig deeper, but I'm lazy.
Thanks Andrei
I got 3 addresses
2 of them about 3Km away from me (1 in a public park)
the 3rd, about 4,500Km away from me, but
Hi.
On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 04:05:00PM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> On 4/12/19 11:11 am, John Hasler wrote:
> > Yes. I suggest Newsguy o
>
>
> Um
>
> Firefox gave me this when I went to their web page
>
> Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead
Firefox messages are useless
Hi.
On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 05:44:37PM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> On 7/12/19 10:55 am, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> > Have had a couple of questions that have gotten me thinking deeply,
> > primarily about whose/what safety I am really trying to protect. My best
> > answer is
> >
On Lu, 09 dec 19, 17:44:37, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> On 7/12/19 10:55 am, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> > Have had a couple of questions that have gotten me thinking deeply,
> > primarily about whose/what safety I am really trying to protect. My best
> > answer is personal, physical safety of my
On 7/12/19 10:55 am, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
Have had a couple of questions that have gotten me thinking deeply,
primarily about whose/what safety I am really trying to protect. My best
answer is personal, physical safety of my family.
Good afternoon all
I have pondered over all you pros and
On 4/12/19 11:11 am, John Hasler wrote:
Yes. I suggest Newsguy o
Um
Firefox gave me this when I went to their web page
Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead
Nightly detected a potential security threat and did not continue to
member.newsguy.com. If you visit this site, attackers
On 7/12/19 12:55 pm, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
On 3/12/19 8:42 pm, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
Just wondering if this is ALL good advice?
Should I use it for ALL my mail, or just sensitive stuff, like
lobbying politicians.
I'm still here. Have had a couple of questions that have gotten me
On 3/12/19 8:42 pm, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
Just wondering if this is ALL good advice?
Should I use it for ALL my mail, or just sensitive stuff, like lobbying
politicians.
I'm still here. Have had a couple of questions that have gotten me
thinking deeply, primarily about whose/what
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 10:21:45AM -, Curt wrote:
> On 2019-12-06, wrote:
> > [...] pompous [...]?
>
> You seem to have sadly progressed backwards [...]
Thanks for confirming.
Cheers?
-- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 2019-12-06, wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 09:28:58AM -, Curt wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Unhappily, both you and Joe were so impatient to refute this argument
>> that you could not wait for it to be actually presented [...]
>
> [...] pompous [...]?
You seem to have sadly progressed
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 09:28:58AM -, Curt wrote:
[...]
> Unhappily, both you and Joe were so impatient to refute this argument
> that you could not wait for it to be actually presented [...]
A little pompous yourself, of late?
Nevermind
-- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 2019-12-05, Brian wrote:
>
>> If you have nothing to hide, it most certainly does not mean you have
>> nothing to fear.
>
> I wondered when the "If you have nothing to hide,..." argument would
> surface. I have plenty to hide. For example, I would not like it widely
> known that I occasionally
On Thursday 05 December 2019 21:02:20 Bob Crochelt wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 05:06:42 -0500
>
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 05 December 2019 04:50:56 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:14:31AM -, Curt wrote:
> > > > On 2019-12-05, ghe wrote:
> > > > > I found
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 05:06:42 -0500
Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 05 December 2019 04:50:56 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:14:31AM -, Curt wrote:
> > > On 2019-12-05, ghe wrote:
> > > > I found out about it in an article on Internet security/privacy
> > > >
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 00:09:15 +0200
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 05 dec 19, 12:30:49, Celejar wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 23:17:46 +0200
> > Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > >
> > > The free account is quite restricted (500 MB, 150 messages per day).
> > > This is more than enough for me for the
On Jo, 05 dec 19, 12:30:49, Celejar wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 23:17:46 +0200
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > The free account is quite restricted (500 MB, 150 messages per day).
> > This is more than enough for me for the stuff I don't want on GMail.
>
> I really wanted to use ProtonMail,
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 20:36:28 +
Brian wrote:
>
> I wondered when the "If you have nothing to hide,..." argument would
> surface.
It is always brought up by those who believe that no authority can ever
do wrong, nor even make a mistake. I thought I'd pre-empt them.
> I have plenty to hide.
On Thu 05 Dec 2019 at 20:23:04 +, Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:52:40 - (UTC)
> Curt wrote:
>
> > On 2019-12-05, Joe wrote:
> > >
> > > Because only in the last decade or so has it been possible for a
> > > government or company to read and listen to every single word of
> > >
On Thu 05 Dec 2019 at 18:18:55 +, Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:14:31 - (UTC)
> Curt wrote:
>
> > On 2019-12-05, ghe wrote:
> > >
> > > I found out about it in an article on Internet security/privacy on
> > > the New York Times -- it's safe for mortals.
> > >
> > > OTOH, I haven't
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:52:40 - (UTC)
Curt wrote:
> On 2019-12-05, Joe wrote:
> >
> > Because only in the last decade or so has it been possible for a
> > government or company to read and listen to every single word of
> > correspondence of every single person in their country, without any
>
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 23:17:46 +0200
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 04 dec 19, 12:49:53, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >
> > Which bring me to the table to ask about protonmail. Who pays for that
> > supposedly secure service at the end of the month? Simple TANSTAAFL, a
> > law that can't be broken and
On 2019-12-05, Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
> On 05/12/2019 18:18, Joe wrote:
>
> I can't take any more of this thread. It's "ADVICE" ! :-)
>
Well, as Carl Jung once said, giving advice is a safe activity, seeing
that hardly anyone ever takes it (thus the psychoanalyst's legendary
reserve, I
On 05/12/2019 18:18, Joe wrote:
I can't take any more of this thread. It's "ADVICE" ! :-)
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:14:31 - (UTC)
> Curt wrote:
>
>> On 2019-12-05, ghe wrote:
>>>
>>> I found out about it in an article on Internet security/privacy on
>>> the New York Times -- it's safe for
On 2019-12-05, Joe wrote:
>
> Because only in the last decade or so has it been possible for a
> government or company to read and listen to every single word of
> correspondence of every single person in their country, without any
> judicial oversight or probable cause. If it had been possible
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:18:55 +
Joe wrote:
> Because only in the last decade or so has it been possible for a
> government or company to read and listen to every single word of
> correspondence of every single person in their country, without any
> judicial oversight or probable cause. If it
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:14:31 - (UTC)
Curt wrote:
> On 2019-12-05, ghe wrote:
> >
> > I found out about it in an article on Internet security/privacy on
> > the New York Times -- it's safe for mortals.
> >
> > OTOH, I haven't been able to get anyone around here to switch from
> > GMail...
>
On 2019-12-05, wrote:
>> What the aging hoi polloi might not be able to grasp is why [...]
>> [encryption] has now somehow become a crucial need.
>
> I might qualify as "aging hoi polloi" [...]. I [...] grasp
(...)
That's wonderful that you're grasping, but I appreciate neither your
unreasoned
On Thursday 05 December 2019 04:50:56 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:14:31AM -, Curt wrote:
> > On 2019-12-05, ghe wrote:
> > > I found out about it in an article on Internet security/privacy on
> > > the New York Times -- it's safe for mortals.
> > >
> > > OTOH, I
On Thursday 05 December 2019 03:31:18 Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 04.12.19 17:33, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > My point exactly. That means two accounts at your isp, I think mine
> > charges only after the 2nd one, and two active fetchmail/procmail
> > sessions = more trouble than it worth. Me? I
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:14:31AM -, Curt wrote:
> On 2019-12-05, ghe wrote:
> >
> > I found out about it in an article on Internet security/privacy on the
> > New York Times -- it's safe for mortals.
> >
> > OTOH, I haven't been able to get anyone around here to switch from GMail...
> >
>
On Thursday 05 December 2019 01:21:18 deloptes wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> [1] (neo)mutt, Sylpheed, Claws Mail, Evolution, KMail, etc.
> >
> > My kmail is TDE's, might not be new enough.
>
> Not new enough, but good enough ;-)
>
> I use it on a daily bases with GPG - works just fine
Good
On 2019-12-05, ghe wrote:
>
> I found out about it in an article on Internet security/privacy on the
> New York Times -- it's safe for mortals.
>
> OTOH, I haven't been able to get anyone around here to switch from GMail...
>
What the aging hoi polloi might not be able to grasp is why, after
On 04.12.19 17:33, Gene Heskett wrote:
> My point exactly. That means two accounts at your isp, I think mine
> charges only after the 2nd one, and two active fetchmail/procmail
> sessions = more trouble than it worth. Me? I got the heck off gmail
> years ago for lack of privacy reasons, and I
Gene Heskett wrote:
>> [1] (neo)mutt, Sylpheed, Claws Mail, Evolution, KMail, etc.
>>
> My kmail is TDE's, might not be new enough.
Not new enough, but good enough ;-)
I use it on a daily bases with GPG - works just fine
On Wednesday, December 04, 2019 08:42:43 PM Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 December 2019 18:20:11 John Hasler wrote:
> > Gene writes:
> > > That means two accounts at your isp...
> >
> > Why?
Just to state it clearly, I've never had a need for more than one account at
my ISP for multiple
On Wednesday 04 December 2019 18:20:11 John Hasler wrote:
> Gene writes:
> > That means two accounts at your isp...
>
> Why?
>
> > ...and two active fetchmail/procmail sessions...
>
> Fetchmail can scan any number of different servers with a single
> session.
I recall now that I've done as high
(Please excuse topPost. )
I'm use protonmail. I run a tiny domain. And I use 2 email
clients/servers: protonmail and Thunderbird. I'm quite happy with
protonmail (PM).
On 12/4/19 3:33 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 December 2019 16:17:46 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> On Mi, 04 dec 19,
On Mi, 04 dec 19, 17:33:40, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 December 2019 16:17:46 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > What's the point in using something like ProtonMail with a publicly
> > archived mailing list?
> >
> My point exactly. That means two accounts at your isp, I think mine
>
On Mi, 04 dec 19, 17:17:30, John Hasler wrote:
> Andrei writes:
> > The free account is quite restricted (500 MB, 150 messages per day).
> > This is more than enough for me for the stuff I don't want on GMail.
>
> If it's free (as in beer) it's no different than Gmail.
The only "advertising"
Gene writes:
> That means two accounts at your isp...
Why?
> ...and two active fetchmail/procmail sessions...
Fetchmail can scan any number of different servers with a single
session.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
Andrei writes:
> The free account is quite restricted (500 MB, 150 messages per day).
> This is more than enough for me for the stuff I don't want on GMail.
If it's free (as in beer) it's no different than Gmail.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
Andrei writes:
> What is not explicitly mentioned there is that you should also somehow
> establish that a specific key belongs to the person, e.g. by meeting
> in person and comparing key fingerprints (and some photo ID if you
> don't know each other).
Only if you require identification (a
On Wednesday 04 December 2019 16:28:05 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:49:53PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > IMO it needs far more educationally aimed discussion than the lists
> > in general have supported so far. Even a pointer to a good tut would
> > be
On Wednesday 04 December 2019 16:17:46 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 04 dec 19, 12:49:53, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Which bring me to the table to ask about protonmail. Who pays for
> > that supposedly secure service at the end of the month? Simple
> > TANSTAAFL, a law that can't be broken and
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:49:53PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
> IMO it needs far more educationally aimed discussion than the lists in
> general have supported so far. Even a pointer to a good tut would be
> appreciated at this campsite. A tut that is NOT written as a commercial
> for a
On Mi, 04 dec 19, 12:49:53, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> Which bring me to the table to ask about protonmail. Who pays for that
> supposedly secure service at the end of the month? Simple TANSTAAFL, a
> law that can't be broken and have survivors, John.
The free account is quite restricted (500 MB,
On Wednesday 04 December 2019 11:17:27 John Hasler wrote:
> Brad Rogers writes:
> > And as has been mentioned, people continue to use the
> > google/yahoo/whoever surveillance webmail systems. And let's face
> > it, they're not going to offer encryption that does not, at the very
> > least,
Brad Rogers writes:
> And as has been mentioned, people continue to use the
> google/yahoo/whoever surveillance webmail systems. And let's face it,
> they're not going to offer encryption that does not, at the very
> least, have a backdoor in it.
Not cynical. Given that they must be able to
tomás writes:
> So what I do is... sign my messages. I'll soon add something to my
> signature recommending encryption (and offering help in setting that
> up).
Good idea. I did that years ago and should start again.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 20:03:42 +0200
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Hello Andrei,
>In my opinion "never" is too strong here, especially with free services
I take your point..
...however..
(you just *knew* that was coming, didn't you? :-D)
.not everyone uses serves such as ProtonMail.
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 09:34:48AM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
[...]
> Several have commented on the usefulness of encryption. The people I
> will be a addressing will mainly fall under the group that wont
> bother trying.
That's my situation to: venturing a rough estimate, 95% to 99% of
Keith Bainbridge writes:
>Perhaps a more secure email provider is my best course?
Yes. I suggest Newsguy or another for-pay email provider. Do as I do
and configure Fetchmail to download all your new mail every five minutes
(and delete it on the server, of course). The snoops rely on people
On 4/12/19 1:19 am, Dan Clery wrote:
In a general sense, the more we encrypt communication, the better we
hide our source IP address, the safer we are, because if you only
encrypt dangerous communications, it's a clear flag of what messages are
dangerous. If they're drops in a sea of noise,
On Ma, 03 dec 19, 12:50:24, John Hasler wrote:
> https://www.wired.com/2015/10/mr-robot-uses-protonmail-still-isnt-fully-secure/
Noting the article is more than 4 years old.
> Besides, most users will continue to use Gmail and the like.
Sure, but ProtonMail also allows to communicate fairly
On 3/12/19 11:04 pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Most appear to be quite sensible, but I'm not using Thunderbird.
Do note that encryption can work only if the other side supports it as
well and you have their public key.
Thanks everybody
One advantage of sleeping while most of you are wide awake
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/mr-robot-uses-protonmail-still-isnt-fully-secure/
Besides, most users will continue to use Gmail and the like.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On Ma, 03 dec 19, 15:55:37, Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 20:42:30 +1100
> Keith Bainbridge wrote:
>
> Hello Keith,
>
> >Should I use it for ALL my mail, or just sensitive stuff, like lobbying
> >politicians.
>
> Ideally, all one's email should be encrypted because if it isn't, the
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 20:42:30 +1100
Keith Bainbridge wrote:
Hello Keith,
>Should I use it for ALL my mail, or just sensitive stuff, like lobbying
>politicians.
Ideally, all one's email should be encrypted because if it isn't, the
ones that *are* encrypted simply SCREAM 'look at me, I'm
Any security advise without consideration of your threat model is less than
ideal.
As others have said, if you send me an encrypted email, and I'm not
prepared to deal with it, your message won't be recieved (your great aunt
Tilly isn't going to be able to read your encrypted emails without a
On Ma, 03 dec 19, 20:42:30, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> Good evening All
>
>
> Just wondering if this is ALL good advice?
>
> Should I use it for ALL my mail, or just sensitive stuff, like lobbying
> politicians.
Most appear to be quite sensible, but I'm not using Thunderbird.
Do note that
61 matches
Mail list logo