[UCLA-LUG] Evolution

[Erik Hovland]

--gMR3gsNFwZpnI/Ts
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 07:54:44PM -0400, Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2000, Denis wrote:
> > what are the differences in security between pine and all of those GUIsh
> > email clients?
> >=20
> > denis
> Well, pine is more secure only because it resides on the same machine as
> the mail spool file. If I wanted to switch to a GUI client I would be
> forced to:
> a) use a combo of the GUI AND pine when I am at local vs remote sites
> respectively. This leaves various inconsistent mailboxes all over the
> place - making me even more sick.
>=20
> b) Download my mail before reading it. AFAIK, all the standard mail
> download protocols (POP, IMAP, etc) are plain text (i.e. insecure).=20
> --
> This means I may as well ssh into the mail server and use pine instead.

Except for available bandwidth concerns why not just use the gui from
the remote box using the ssh X tunnel? Any machine worth it's salt by
having ssh would therefore also be able to use X and this secure
tunnel.

POP has a way to be used over ssl or ssh and IMAP from the beginning
has supported ssl although few admins use it.

E

--=20
Erik Hovland
USC Linux User Group President
http://sclug.usc.edu/~ehovland/
GnuPG public key: http://sclug.usc.edu/~ehovland/ehovland.gpg

"Your bastard child of a network has grown up, gone to counseling
 and doesn't want to talk to you anymore." - shupe


--gMR3gsNFwZpnI/Ts
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE5D3NJ4U3i4m+7U54RAcshAJ9ox0UxOPqxlQAkGevCL75ZV7BrdACfXEDo
lEeIw1EH8HK+91WooBzfyo8=
=ResV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--gMR3gsNFwZpnI/Ts--