Re: On the security of e-mails
Uhm, isn't Sendmail's SMTP-over-SSL thing supposed to conform to some
standard..? I seriously doubt the other endpoint has to be
Sendmail; rather, I think it probably only needs to be running a proper
SMTP-over-SSL implementation. If this is the case, then this can be done
with stunnel and your favorite MTA. (mine being qmail... why doesn't
everyone use qmail..?)
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCM d- s:+ a--- C++++ UL++++ P L+++ E W++ N o-- K- w
O--- M- V- PS+ PE- Y PGP t+ 5 X- R tv+ b DI--- D+
G e-- h++ r--- y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
On Thu, 25 May 2000 email@example.com wrote:
> Sendmail is also beginning to address this issue. 8.11.x is supposed to
> include SSL code to do end-to-end encryption. However, this still leaves
> an opening at the destination host for snooping. Aside from that, this
> assumes that both ends are using sendmail 8.11, which is a pipe dream for
> a while to come. For end-to-end security, PGP or GPG encryption is the way
> to go.
> On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 09:14:20AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote:
> > The closest reliable method in that area is PGP encryption
> > of e-mail. In theory only those people who have the message
> > signed with their public key will be able to read it.
> > In practice I haven't heard otherwise.
> > The only place where it isn't appropriate to encrypt (maybe only sign)
> > is on public mailing lists.
> > Daniel Taylor Embedded and custom Linux integration.
> > firstname.lastname@example.org (612)747-1609
> Bradley M. Alexander | Co-Chairman,
> Beowulf System Admin/Security Specialist | NoVALUG/DCLUG Security SIG
> Winstar Telecom | email@example.com
> (703) 889-1049 | firstname.lastname@example.org
> Never draw fire, it irritates everyone around you.
> --Murphy's Laws of Combat