Viewing profile — jamesaepp

Yes, I'm satisfied with the evidence presented that the "major" vendors aren't signing their zones, but I do think we're far off-topic at this point as to whether or not the client…

The fact is that almost none of the communications we use on a daily basis are end-to-end encrypted. What response would you get if you told staff, partners, executives, support pe…

The problem for the mob rests on the fact that they advertise the system as being e2e, when it is not - at least with the definition I use for e2e. https://zoom.us/security My rule…

If only people had this type of mindset and attitude _before_ they selected a communications platform.

Short answer: No.

Thanks for the link, that's quite interesting. While web browsers can implement their own DNS resolver, that's completely irrelevant when we're talking about an MTA. The server(s) …

>Virtually none of the important names are signed. Source? >...Or likely ever will be Source?

I'm not sure what you mean by the "transmitted data itself is not encrypted". The payload (the packet above layer 5) is encrypted. The distinction people need to make is who the _c…

Trouble being that SPF and DKIM only work when they've been implemented correctly and they rely on DNS. That requires DNS to be resilient against attacks (DNS isn't foolproof).

While yes, email has no implicit authentication and forging an email is trivial, pulling that attack off is super difficult due to modern SPF and DKIM mechanisms. I'm not super fam…

I'm not looking for an argument, I've never noticed this behavior before. Why is this done? People are saying this is some kind of way to combat spamming/spoofing/malicious email b…

Can someone break down what this means for me? I'm assuming an example of say Thunderbird as the MUA connects to gmail's servers with SMTP over TLS or using STARTTLS and happens to…

Wow they exchanged one monopoly for another monopoly that can use force. Genius voter population over there.