[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Dumb DNS Question? (port 25 filtering)

Russ Johnson russj at dimstar.net
Tue Mar 7 22:34:53 PST 2006

AthlonRob wrote:
> plug_0 at robinson-west.com wrote:
>> Authenticating who sends email through PSU servers and requiring that it
>> be encrypted, doesn't this smack of censorship and a pointless approach
>> to spam control?
> No, that's just being a good netizen.  The authentication only goes so
> far as to say "yes, I will relay emails for you because I know who you
> are."  An alternative is to hit an SMTP server on a different port - the
> fact that it's encrypted is only a bonus.
> How would requiring SMTP traffic be encrypted (harder for prying eyes to
> see) even be near censorship?
Personal opinion...

Encrypting email at all is bad. It gives the general public the mistaken 
idea that email is or can be private. Then you end up with law such as 
those in some areas of Europe where it illegal for your boss to read 
your email, on the businesses PC.

Regardless of wether anyone thinks your boss should or should not be 
able to read every byte on your work provided PC, email is not, has 
never been, and should not be private.

If you want to send a private message, hand deliver it yourself with a 
locked box around it.

At one point, I thought about trying to set up GnuPG and various other 
ways to verify my identity, encrypt my email, etc. Then I thought about 
it, and figured, "what the heck am I doing?" Every bit I send from my PC 
gets archived on some other computer somewhere on the net. The strongest 
encyption out there can be broken, given enough cpu cycles. It's a 
losing battle.

In one sense, the maxim, "no one is free until we are all free" applies 
here more than anywhere.


More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list