Hello, I switched few years ago to fastmail.fm for several reasons :
- https + advanced protections when accessing from public terminal (including url pseudo-scrambling) - IMAP with SSL - Text and only text for the webmail interface (no pop-up ad and no graphics), just plain speed - WebDAV (I don't use it) - IMAP access on non-standard port like 80 and 443 so you can go through some difficult firewalls I usually don't promote commercial products but as they offer a free plan as well I thought it might help some people. Dany PS: before writting this email I quickly started Ethereal and used the webmail in order to check that the connection was SSL protected even after login. Henry Hertz Hobbit a écrit : >Johan Wevers wrote: > > > >>Henry Hertz Hobbit wrote: >> >> >> >>>Usually, if you are using a web interface to access your email, only the >>>initial authentication is done via SSL. After that if your URL address >>>shifts to using an "http://"; rather than the "https://"; you made your >>>initial connection with means that your communication just shifted from >>>SSL (weak encryption) to NO encryption. That is the norm. >>> >>> >>Strange, I've never seen that happen. All webmail from Dutch providers >>that I've accessed (my own and some for people with problems where I >>accessed the mail to dump mails with large attachments that took too >>long to download) were https all the way. >> >> > >Thanks for the information. The reason I said what I said is because >Netscape, Yahoo, gmail (the email account the original person was >posting from) almost all do a shift from https:// to http:// after the >connection is made. The only ones I have seen that continue using the >SSL are small ISPs and only one of the local universities here. But then >I have only seen three of the universities, and actually even the one >that was using SSL all the time shifted after I showed an acquaintance >how to make the connection that way and he spread the information to >everybody he knew who spread it to .... Once that was done, even that >school shifted to doing it with SSL for connection only. I realize that >SSL doesn't have the overhead of more powerful encryption like that >provided by OpenPGP, but it is still enough of an overhead that once >the load of SSL all the time becomes noticeable to the ISP (or whoever), >they feel that the authentication alone should be using SSL and they >make the shift to using plain the rest of the time. In other words, >consider yourself lucky IF you are getting SSL all the time if you >need it all the time. On the other hand if you don't need SSL all the >time there MAY be the possibility those long download times are partly >being caused by the overhead of SSL encryption taking place on the >server. > >Do you need encryption all the time or not? My advice still remains the >same - OpenPGP is still the best choice for the scenario presented, IF I >indeed understood all the parameters. It puts the control of when to use >it in your hands. It just depends on what is being transported. I could >care less whether all that spam is encrypted or not. I also don't want all >the redirected email on my comcast account (also spam, but with the worms >removed) encrypted during transmission. The faster I get rid of it the >better. Not having the transmission of it helps me get rid of it as fast >as possible! > >HHH > > >__________________________________________________________________ >Switch to Netscape Internet Service. >As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register > >Netscape. Just the Net You Need. > >New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer >Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. >Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp > >_______________________________________________ >Gnupg-users mailing list >Gnupg-users@gnupg.org >http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > > _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
