Re: Gmail and SSL

2013-01-01 Thread Keith Medcalf
Non prime number store certificates are acceptd for SMTP (25) both to and from google. Perhaps this is CYA to prevent compromised gmail accounts from giving credentials from hijacked accounts to unknown servers. I have no idea how credentials for gmails pop pickup work but perhaps having hijac

Re: Gmail and SSL

2013-01-01 Thread Mike Jones
On 1 January 2013 19:04, Keith Medcalf wrote: > Perhaps Googles other "harvesters" and the government agents they sell or > give user credentials to, don't work against privately (not under the > goverment thumb) encryption keys without the surveillance state expending > significantly more reso

Re: Gmail and SSL

2013-01-01 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 12:04:16PM -0700, Keith Medcalf wrote: > Perhaps the cheapest way to solve this is to apply thumbscrews and have > google require the use of co-option freindly keying material by their > victims errr customers errr users. ITYM "product". - Matt

Re: Gmail and SSL

2013-01-01 Thread Scott Howard
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:07 AM, John R. Levine wrote: > Really, this isn't hard to understand. Current SSL signers do no more > than tie the identity of the cert to the identity of a domain name. Anyone > who's been following the endless crisis at ICANN about bogus WHOIS knows > that domain nam

Re: Gmail and SSL

2013-01-01 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote: > Perhaps Googles other "harvesters" and the government agents they sell or > give user credentials to, don't work against privately (not under the > goverment thumb) encryption keys without the surveillance state expending > significantly more

Re: Gmail and SSL

2013-01-01 Thread Keith Medcalf
Perhaps Googles other "harvesters" and the government agents they sell or give user credentials to, don't work against privately (not under the goverment thumb) encryption keys without the surveillance state expending significantly more resources. Perhaps the cheapest way to solve this is to ap

Re: Gmail and SSL

2013-01-01 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:07 AM, John R. Levine wrote: > Also keep in mind that this particular argument is about the certs used to > submit mail to Gmail, which requires a separate SMTP AUTH within the SSL > session before you can send any mail. This isn't belt and suspenders, this > is belt and

Re: GeekTools Whois Proxy and RIPE/RIPE-NCC

2013-01-01 Thread Florian Weimer
* Job Snijders: > In the meantime you could consider setting up an irrd[1], redirect > queries to that instance instead of whois.ripe.net, and keep it kind > of fresh by feeding it ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/ripe.db.gz on a > daily basis. RIPE NCC strips all contact information from the bulk e