[Discuss] Temporarily disable check for messages in Thunderbird

[R. McFarlane]

stephen hawkes wrote:

> What blows my mind is how much money these companies make and why they 
> don't just buy some frigging ssl certs. Heck get some self signed ones 
> for all I care.
> 
> I had a discussion with someone I know that was a shaw tech locally 
> (since moved to calgary) about the poor encryption on their webmail and 
> lack of it on their pop access. The excuse for 64bit ssl on the webmail 
> was so that you can access your email from any country, since higher 
> encryption might not be usable. I know there are laws about exporting 
> products with certain levels of encryption from the US (so IE would be 
> affected maybe?), but I'm pretty sure I could find a web browser that 
> would work in any country. Heck they could do the same thing as uvic 
> webmail and let you choose between encrypted or not.
> 
> The excuse for not having any ecryption on their pop server was that you 
> connect through your shaw modem which goes "directly" to the shaw 
> server. I brought up wireless connections, as many people have wireless 
> at home now. His reply: Use wep or wpa. Well not all people know how to 
> set that up (judging by the amount of open APs around me right now) and 
> wep is trivial to break.
> 
> Anyhow, from his responses it seemed like they had replies ready (even 
> if they are poor ones) and don't really care to do anything about it. I 
> guess they have few enough problems that the cost isn't justified.


	Well then, one day maybe someone should capture packets, break the 
encryption and then send a complete how-to video to the local news agencies.
	Their so called "security" through cable modem is a joke. It might be 
different now with the newer "modems", but when I had cable internet it 
was *really* easy to access file shares on other computers through the 
shaw network!
	SSL/TLS support for mail access is not hard to do nor expensive!

-- 

www.mcfarlanecomputing.net