Title: 9. MÜSÝAD Uluslararasý Ticaret Fuarý, 3-6 Ekim 2002, Istanbul
9. MÜSÝAD ULUSLARARASI FUARI
3-6 EKÝM 2002, ÝSTANBUL
CNR, Yeþilköy
Evet !
MÜSÝAD Fuarlarý devam ediyor !...
Türkiye'mizin
gele
at Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:13 AM, Peter Gutmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was seen to say:
> As opposed to more conventional encryption, where you're protecting
> nothing at any point along the chain, because 99.99% of the user base
> can't/won't use it.
That is a different problem. if you assume
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
at Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 PM, Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
seen
to say:
> Well, it's a start. Every mail server (except mx1 and
> mx2.prserv.net) should use TLS.
Its nice in theory, but in practice look how long it takes the bulk
of the internet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Stewart wrote:
|
| If your organization is an ISP, the risks are letting them
| handle your email at all (especially with currently proposed
| mandatory eavesdropping laws), and STARTTLS provides a
| mechanism for direct delivery that isn't as li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Udhay Shankar N wrote:
| At 10:04 AM 10/2/02 -0500, Jeremey Barrett wrote:
|
|> Amusingly, virtually none of them support STARTLS on any other protocol.
|> :) IMAP and POP are almost all supported only on dedicated SSL ports
|> (IMAPS, POP3S). Argh.
|
--On Wednesday, 02 October, 2002 10:54 -0500 Jeremey Barrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Udhay Shankar N wrote:
>| At 10:04 AM 10/2/02 -0500, Jeremey Barrett wrote:
>|
>|> Amusingly, virtually none of them support STARTLS on any other protocol.
>|> :) IMAP and POP are almost all supported only
Lucky Green wrote:
> I also agree that current MTAs' implementations of STARTTLS are only a
> first step. At least in postfix, the only MTA with which I am
> sufficiently familiar to form an opinion, it appears impossible to
> require that certs presented by trusted parties match a particular hash
--
> > Once you start using it, it becomes part of hte pattern
> > by wich other people identify you.
On 2 Oct 2002 at 9:52, David Howe wrote:
> Exactly the intention, yes :) Just for the sake of it (anyone
> who cares will have seen my signature enough times by now) I
> will sign
At 02:37 PM 10/1/02 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
>Court rules up-skirt peep cams legal
>
>In a ruling that could change fashions in Washington state, the supreme
>court there has ruled that "up-skirt cams" do not violate voyeurism
laws.
>
>[Using almost identical logic cities around the country hav
Title: email
This message is
never sent unsolicited.
If you feel that your email was obtained by error, or would like to opt-out
of receiving future of
Cryptome has nor been updated since 9/23 ... any clues, anyone ?
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:54:54PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
| Lucky Green wrote:
| >I also agree that current MTAs' implementations of STARTTLS are only a
| >first step. At least in postfix, the only MTA with which I am
| >sufficiently familiar to form an opinion, it appears impossible to
| >requi
James A. Donald wrote:
>> And PGP tells me "signature not checked, key does not meet
> validity threshold"
what version are you on? ckt never does that - it checks it, and marks the
sig status as good or bad - but obviously marks the key status as invalid
(due to lack of signing) on anyone I don't
Adam Shostack wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:54:54PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
> | Lucky Green wrote:
> | >I also agree that current MTAs' implementations of STARTTLS are only a
> | >first step. At least in postfix, the only MTA with which I am
> | >sufficiently familiar to form an opinion, it
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 09:12:47PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
| Adam Shostack wrote:
| >On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:54:54PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
| >| Lucky Green wrote:
| >| >I also agree that current MTAs' implementations of STARTTLS are only a
| >| >first step. At least in postfix, the only MTA
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Anonymous wrote:
> Cryptome has nor been updated since 9/23 ... any clues, anyone ?
No. Anyone knows whether John Young is okay?
Greetings Business Owner,
Do you have Legal coverage for your business?
Now you can get a Business Owners Legal Plan for your company
that makes it like having a top law firm "on your staff".
Obtain benefits like:
- Legal consultation ...pick up the phone and call
- Legal correspondence
- C
Ben wrote:
> Lucky Green wrote:
> > I also agree that current MTAs' implementations of STARTTLS
> are only a
> > first step. At least in postfix, the only MTA with which I am
> > sufficiently familiar to form an opinion, it appears impossible to
> > require that certs presented by trusted part
"David Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>at Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:13 AM, Peter Gutmann
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was seen to say:
>>As opposed to more conventional encryption, where you're protecting
>>nothing at any point along the chain, because 99.99% of the user base
>>can't/won't use it.
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:45:47PM -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
> --
> On 2 Oct 2002 at 16:19, Adam Shostack wrote:
> > Whats wrong with PGP sigs is that going on 9 full years after
> > I generated my first pgp key, my mom still can't use the
> > stuff.
>
> The fact that your mum cannot use t
At 09:05 AM 10/01/2002 -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
>So yes Alice at ABC.COM sends mail to Bob at XYZ.COM and
>the SMTP link is encrypted, so the bored upstream-ISP netops
>can't learn anything besides traffic analysis.
>But once inside XYZ.COM, many unauthorized folks could
>intercept Bob's
21 matches
Mail list logo
