Re[2]: [vchkpw] SMTP Auth HOWTO?

2004-05-21 Thread magazine
Hello Jeremy, Friday, May 21, 2004, 3:47:18 PM, you wrote: JK> On Friday, May 21, 2004 5:41 AM, DEBO Jurgen E. G. wrote: >> In the OLD days, people were happy with SMTP-Auth. I consider it LESS >> security as SMTP after POP, because with SMTP-Auth, You sent Your >> e-mailadress and Your password

Re[2]: [vchkpw] SMTP Auth HOWTO?

2004-05-21 Thread magazine
Hello Erwin, Friday, May 21, 2004, 5:14:30 PM, you wrote: EH> Hi, EH> At 11:41 21.05.04 +0200, you wrote: >>Hello blist, >> >>In the OLD days, people were happy with SMTP-Auth. I consider it LESS >>security as SMTP after POP, because with SMTP-Auth, You sent Your >>e-mailadress and Your passwo

Re[2]: [vchkpw] SMTP Auth HOWTO?

2004-05-21 Thread magazine
Hello Jeremy, Friday, May 21, 2004, 5:20:40 PM, you wrote: JK> On Friday 21 May 2004 10:21 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> EH> This is only true for SMTP Authentication of type "plain" and "login". >> EH> With CRAM-MD5 its quite save. >> Yes, it's 'quite' safe, but You still reveal Your e-mailad

Re[2]: [vchkpw] SMTP Auth HOWTO?

2004-05-21 Thread magazine
Hello Nick, Friday, May 21, 2004, 8:02:19 PM, you wrote: NH> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>Hello Jeremy, >> >>Friday, May 21, 2004, 5:20:40 PM, you wrote: >> >>JK> On Friday 21 May 2004 10:21 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>  >> EH> This is only true for SMTP Authentication of type "plain" and

Re[4]: [vchkpw] SMTP Auth HOWTO?

2004-05-21 Thread magazine
Hello Erwin, Friday, May 21, 2004, 7:37:15 PM, you wrote: EH> Hi, EH> At 17:21 21.05.04 +0200, you wrote: >>Hello Erwin, >> >>Friday, May 21, 2004, 5:14:30 PM, you wrote: >> >>EH> Hi, >> >>EH> At 11:41 21.05.04 +0200, you wrote: Hello blist, >> In the OLD days, people were happy wit

Re[2]: [vchkpw] SMTP Auth HOWTO?

2004-05-21 Thread magazine
Hello Patrick, Friday, May 21, 2004, 9:34:30 PM, you wrote: PD> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PD> Hello Erwin, PD> Friday, May 21, 2004, 7:37:15 PM, you wrote: EH>> Hi, EH>> At 17:21 21.05.04 +0200, you wrote: PD> Hello Erwin, PD> Friday, May 21, 2004, 5:14:30 PM, you wrote: EH>> Hi

Re[4]: [vchkpw] SMTP Auth HOWTO?

2004-05-21 Thread magazine
Hello Nick, Friday, May 21, 2004, 10:13:29 PM, you wrote: NH> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> NH> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] NH> Received: (qmail 98433 invoked by uid 1017); 21 May 2004 20:24:45 - NH> Received: from venus.teleshop.name NH> by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-6.2.5

Re: [vchkpw] Re: SMTP Auth HOWTO?

2004-05-22 Thread magazine
Hello Peter, Saturday, May 22, 2004, 6:34:03 PM, you wrote: PP> Hello List, PP> On Friday, May 21, 2004 at 5:21:36 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (at PP> least in part): In the OLD days, people were happy with SMTP-Auth. I consider it LESS security as SMTP after POP, because with SMTP-Auth

Re: [vchkpw] Re: SMTP Auth HOWTO?

2004-05-22 Thread magazine
Hello Peter, Saturday, May 22, 2004, 9:03:21 PM, you wrote: PP> Hello List, PP> On Saturday, May 22, 2004 at 8:06:41 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (at PP> least in part): PP> [full quote snipped] >> Before You make comments, first read the previous post. PP> Well, ok. *erm* I just recognize: alre

Re[2]: [vchkpw] Re: SMTP Auth HOWTO?

2004-05-22 Thread magazine
Hello X-Istence, Saturday, May 22, 2004, 11:06:33 PM, you wrote: XI> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- XI> Hash: SHA1 XI> Your first message, which started this flamewar. >> >> >> Roy, >> >> In the OLD days, people were happy with SMTP-Auth. I consider it LESS >> security as SMTP after POP,