Email Clients and digital signatures

Joseph Bruni
Thu Jul 3 12:17:02 2003

Hash: SHA1

With this statement I would very much disagree. Win95/98/ME are based  =0D=

on DOS and use the DOS security model -- i.e., none at all. Whereas,  =0D=

Linux borrows from the Unix security model (users, groups, access  =0D
control, etc. enforced by the kernel). The only way Linux could emulate  =
DOS in this manner is if the user logged in as root, but none of the  =0D=

DOS-based Microsoft operating systems can emulate the security of Unix.=0D=

Merely not running Outlook or Outlook Express alone is a positive step  =0D=

towards security since the user is no longer vulnerable to the numerous  =
holes presented by those applications. Few (probably none) Linux email  =0D=

clients are vulnerable to the various problems that are activated  =0D
merely by viewing an email in the Preview pane. The implementation of  =0D=

VBA is a major flaw in Outlook and to date there are no equivalents in  =0D=

the Linux/Unix realm. Recent news about "Sobig" and its relatives  =0D
illustrate this quite readily.=0D
Stating facts as the various participants on this list have done is not  =
being "snotty snobby". However the way you ended your email is quite  =0D=

immature and "snotty snobby". (Quoted below, to wit, "I didn't think  =0D=

On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 03:32 PM, R.Emory Lundberg wrote:=0D
> On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 11:15 AM, Thomas Arend wrote:=0D
>> Windows 98 is not a very good chice from the security aspect. Indeed  =
>> it=B4s the=0D
>> worst. Outlook is also not a good choice as MS Office.=0D
>> My proposal is try Linux, Ximian Evolution OpenOffice.=0D
> I don't want to get into a huge thing here, but it would have been  =0D=

> more helpful to point out that this person can run OpenOffice on their =
> own Windows PCs.  A Linux PC as a workstation isn't really  =0D
> substantially "more secure" than a Windows 98 PC - especially in the  =0D=

> hands of someone that has never used it before.=0D
>> You will get an Outlook equivalent mail client with integrated  =0D
>> calendar, to do=0D
>> etc. And an easy going crypto integration.=0D
> They can use the GNUpg plugin for Outlook, too.  I think some people  =0D=

> are much happier if they can continue to use Win32 computers if that  =0D=

> is what they know, and using software like GNUpg only makes it better  =
> for all of us.  The more people actively using GNUpg the better it  =0D=

> will get - and this means the GNUpg project needs desperately to have  =
> much wider acceptance on Windows networks.=0D
> People have been trying the snotty snobby approach for years.  It  =0D
> hasn't worked.  If you want people to use GPL'ed or Free software, it  =
> needs to work with what people use.  Arguing with them why Outlook  =0D=

> sucks is a lost cause.  Some things people just need to figure out on  =
> your own.  Did you all start using GNUpg and Linux because someone  =0D=

> told you to?=0D
> I didn't think so.=0D
> r. emory lundberg (finger emory AT hellyeah DOT com for PGP, email,  =0D=

> etc)=0D
> =
....................................................................... =0D=

> ...=0D
> print: 92E4 FCA5 B843 55C0 11FE  8967 A222 76CB 65A8 7225=0D
> ahref:  =0D
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)