Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.linux > #50877 > unrolled thread

Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed

Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux

Contents

  Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201809.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2018-09-23 19:45 +0000
    Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-09-23 22:03 -0400
      Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-09-24 10:27 +0000
        Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-24 14:11 +0100
          Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-09-24 15:20 +0000
            Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-24 17:49 +0100
        Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2018-09-24 09:57 -0600
          Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-09-24 16:40 +0000
      Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-09-24 07:48 -0500
        Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-09-24 13:18 -0400
          Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-09-25 08:16 -0500
            Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-09-25 10:26 -0400
              Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-09-25 17:17 +0200
                Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-09-26 14:16 -0400
                  Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-26 14:24 -0400
                    Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-09-26 14:47 -0400
                      Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-26 14:56 -0400
                        Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-09-26 22:20 -0400
                          Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-27 00:43 -0400
                            Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-09-27 11:21 -0400
                              Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-27 11:52 -0400
                                Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-09-27 12:10 -0400
                                  Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-27 12:15 -0400
                                    Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-09-27 14:31 -0400
                                      Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-27 20:07 +0000
                                        Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-27 16:39 -0400
                                          Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-09-28 09:45 -0400
                                            Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-28 09:52 -0400
                                              Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-09-28 14:22 -0400
                                                Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-28 14:26 -0400
                                                  Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-09-28 15:43 -0400
                                                    Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-28 15:54 -0400
                          Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-27 06:52 +0100
                            Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-09-27 11:22 -0400
    Re: Good example why business emails should be PGP'ed Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-09-24 08:37 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#50979

In article <g14ar9Ffdg9U1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>>> People with which I needed to use encryption were unable to set any
> >>>>>> encryption method up. A lawyer, for instance. I would have to go to his
> >>>>>> office and teach him.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> use an encrypted email service. there's nothing to set up. all they
> >>>>> need is a browser or an app on their phone.
> >>>>
> >>>> That would require a binding contract and spend money, which they did
> >>>> not want to do.
> >>>
> >>> no it wouldn't. it only needs a mutual agreement to use an encrypted
> >>> medium. there are free options as well as paid ones. choose whichever
> >>> one works best for all parties involved.
> >>
> >> Not for a lawyer, it wouldn't. He would be directly liable if the email
> >> gets intercepted or somehow compromised.
> > 
> > it's actually ideal for a lawyer, since it's basically impossible to
> > intercept and crack end-to-end encrypted email unless the passcode is
> > something trivially guessed.
> 
> We know that. He may or may not, but that would be irrelevant. :-)
> 
> He needs to pay someone that says "yes, this is safe". With a contract.

not if he uses a free service that states that, which i said exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50980

On 27/09/2018 11.52, nospam wrote:
> In article <g14ar9Ffdg9U1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>> People with which I needed to use encryption were unable to set any
>>>>>>>> encryption method up. A lawyer, for instance. I would have to go to his
>>>>>>>> office and teach him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> use an encrypted email service. there's nothing to set up. all they
>>>>>>> need is a browser or an app on their phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would require a binding contract and spend money, which they did
>>>>>> not want to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> no it wouldn't. it only needs a mutual agreement to use an encrypted
>>>>> medium. there are free options as well as paid ones. choose whichever
>>>>> one works best for all parties involved.
>>>>
>>>> Not for a lawyer, it wouldn't. He would be directly liable if the email
>>>> gets intercepted or somehow compromised.
>>>
>>> it's actually ideal for a lawyer, since it's basically impossible to
>>> intercept and crack end-to-end encrypted email unless the passcode is
>>> something trivially guessed.
>>
>> We know that. He may or may not, but that would be irrelevant. :-)
>>
>> He needs to pay someone that says "yes, this is safe". With a contract.
> 
> not if he uses a free service that states that, which i said exist.

Not valid enough for the lawyer. He needs someone to sue.


-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50981

In article <g14dmrFg12cU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>>>>> People with which I needed to use encryption were unable to set any
> >>>>>>>> encryption method up. A lawyer, for instance. I would have to go to
> >>>>>>>> his
> >>>>>>>> office and teach him.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> use an encrypted email service. there's nothing to set up. all they
> >>>>>>> need is a browser or an app on their phone.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That would require a binding contract and spend money, which they did
> >>>>>> not want to do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> no it wouldn't. it only needs a mutual agreement to use an encrypted
> >>>>> medium. there are free options as well as paid ones. choose whichever
> >>>>> one works best for all parties involved.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not for a lawyer, it wouldn't. He would be directly liable if the email
> >>>> gets intercepted or somehow compromised.
> >>>
> >>> it's actually ideal for a lawyer, since it's basically impossible to
> >>> intercept and crack end-to-end encrypted email unless the passcode is
> >>> something trivially guessed.
> >>
> >> We know that. He may or may not, but that would be irrelevant. :-)
> >>
> >> He needs to pay someone that says "yes, this is safe". With a contract.
> > 
> > not if he uses a free service that states that, which i said exist.
> 
> Not valid enough for the lawyer. He needs someone to sue.

not for every item he uses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50984

On 27/09/2018 12.15, nospam wrote:
> In article <g14dmrFg12cU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>>> People with which I needed to use encryption were unable to set any
>>>>>>>>>> encryption method up. A lawyer, for instance. I would have to go to
>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>> office and teach him.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> use an encrypted email service. there's nothing to set up. all they
>>>>>>>>> need is a browser or an app on their phone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That would require a binding contract and spend money, which they did
>>>>>>>> not want to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no it wouldn't. it only needs a mutual agreement to use an encrypted
>>>>>>> medium. there are free options as well as paid ones. choose whichever
>>>>>>> one works best for all parties involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not for a lawyer, it wouldn't. He would be directly liable if the email
>>>>>> gets intercepted or somehow compromised.
>>>>>
>>>>> it's actually ideal for a lawyer, since it's basically impossible to
>>>>> intercept and crack end-to-end encrypted email unless the passcode is
>>>>> something trivially guessed.
>>>>
>>>> We know that. He may or may not, but that would be irrelevant. :-)
>>>>
>>>> He needs to pay someone that says "yes, this is safe". With a contract.
>>>
>>> not if he uses a free service that states that, which i said exist.
>>
>> Not valid enough for the lawyer. He needs someone to sue.
> 
> not for every item he uses.
> 

Something as crucial as mail? Certainly. Ask them...

-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50992

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 27/09/2018 12.15, nospam wrote:
> > In article <g14dmrFg12cU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >>>>>>>>>> People with which I needed to use encryption were unable to set any
> >>>>>>>>>> encryption method up. A lawyer, for instance. I would have to go to
> >>>>>>>>>> his
> >>>>>>>>>> office and teach him.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> use an encrypted email service. there's nothing to set up. all they
> >>>>>>>>> need is a browser or an app on their phone.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That would require a binding contract and spend money, which they did
> >>>>>>>> not want to do.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> no it wouldn't. it only needs a mutual agreement to use an encrypted
> >>>>>>> medium. there are free options as well as paid ones. choose whichever
> >>>>>>> one works best for all parties involved.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not for a lawyer, it wouldn't. He would be directly liable if the email
> >>>>>> gets intercepted or somehow compromised.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it's actually ideal for a lawyer, since it's basically impossible to
> >>>>> intercept and crack end-to-end encrypted email unless the passcode is
> >>>>> something trivially guessed.
> >>>>
> >>>> We know that. He may or may not, but that would be irrelevant. :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> He needs to pay someone that says "yes, this is safe". With a contract.
> >>>
> >>> not if he uses a free service that states that, which i said exist.
> >>
> >> Not valid enough for the lawyer. He needs someone to sue.
> > 
> > not for every item he uses.
> 
> Something as crucial as mail? Certainly. Ask them...

  I don't know about you, but I found this part quite funny, not to say
hilarious:

> >>>> He needs to pay someone that says "yes, this is safe". With a contract.
> >>>
> >>> not if he uses a free service that states that, which i said exist.

  A *lawyer*, trusting a *free* service saying "yes, this is safe"!?

  nospam at his best!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50995

In article <pojkai.ar4.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> 
> > >>>> He needs to pay someone that says "yes, this is safe". With a contract.
> > >>>
> > >>> not if he uses a free service that states that, which i said exist.
> 
>   A *lawyer*, trusting a *free* service saying "yes, this is safe"!?

there are several encrypted email services which guarantees that nobody
other than the sender or recipient can read the contents, which are
used by lawyers and many others who want secure transit. some are free,
some offer paid tiers above free and some are paid only, depending on
various options such as number of mailboxes, email volume, custom
domain, etc. some are open source and can be audited. at least one
lists gdpr compliance.

don't dismiss it because of your own unfamiliarity with the products.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51014

On 27/09/2018 16.39, nospam wrote:
> In article <pojkai.ar4.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>
>>>>>>> He needs to pay someone that says "yes, this is safe". With a contract.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not if he uses a free service that states that, which i said exist.
>>
>>   A *lawyer*, trusting a *free* service saying "yes, this is safe"!?
> 
> there are several encrypted email services which guarantees that nobody
> other than the sender or recipient can read the contents, which are
> used by lawyers and many others who want secure transit. some are free,
> some offer paid tiers above free and some are paid only, depending on
> various options such as number of mailboxes, email volume, custom
> domain, etc. some are open source and can be audited. at least one
> lists gdpr compliance.
> 
> don't dismiss it because of your own unfamiliarity with the products.

Does that include setting PGP on his own? Or does it assume that his IT
professional hired by the bureau sets that or some other service?

-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51015

In article <g16pklFgl3U1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>>>> He needs to pay someone that says "yes, this is safe". With a
> >>>>>>> contract.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> not if he uses a free service that states that, which i said exist.
> >>
> >>   A *lawyer*, trusting a *free* service saying "yes, this is safe"!?
> > 
> > there are several encrypted email services which guarantees that nobody
> > other than the sender or recipient can read the contents, which are
> > used by lawyers and many others who want secure transit. some are free,
> > some offer paid tiers above free and some are paid only, depending on
> > various options such as number of mailboxes, email volume, custom
> > domain, etc. some are open source and can be audited. at least one
> > lists gdpr compliance.
> > 
> > don't dismiss it because of your own unfamiliarity with the products.
> 
> Does that include setting PGP on his own?

no.

> Or does it assume that his IT
> professional hired by the bureau sets that or some other service?

no.

this applies to you too:
> > don't dismiss it because of your own unfamiliarity with the products.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51025

On 28/09/2018 09.52, nospam wrote:
> In article <g16pklFgl3U1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>> He needs to pay someone that says "yes, this is safe". With a
>>>>>>>>> contract.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> not if he uses a free service that states that, which i said exist.
>>>>
>>>>   A *lawyer*, trusting a *free* service saying "yes, this is safe"!?
>>>
>>> there are several encrypted email services which guarantees that nobody
>>> other than the sender or recipient can read the contents, which are
>>> used by lawyers and many others who want secure transit. some are free,
>>> some offer paid tiers above free and some are paid only, depending on
>>> various options such as number of mailboxes, email volume, custom
>>> domain, etc. some are open source and can be audited. at least one
>>> lists gdpr compliance.
>>>
>>> don't dismiss it because of your own unfamiliarity with the products.
>>
>> Does that include setting PGP on his own?
> 
> no.
> 
>> Or does it assume that his IT
>> professional hired by the bureau sets that or some other service?
> 
> no.
> 

Then it does not apply for a law bureau.

> this applies to you too:
>>> don't dismiss it because of your own unfamiliarity with the products.


-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51026

In article <g179rsF3oilU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>> there are several encrypted email services which guarantees that nobody
> >>> other than the sender or recipient can read the contents, which are
> >>> used by lawyers and many others who want secure transit. some are free,
> >>> some offer paid tiers above free and some are paid only, depending on
> >>> various options such as number of mailboxes, email volume, custom
> >>> domain, etc. some are open source and can be audited. at least one
> >>> lists gdpr compliance.
> >>>
> >>> don't dismiss it because of your own unfamiliarity with the products.
> >>
> >> Does that include setting PGP on his own?
> > 
> > no.
> > 
> >> Or does it assume that his IT
> >> professional hired by the bureau sets that or some other service?
> > 
> > no.
> 
> Then it does not apply for a law bureau.

it does not disqualify it for being used.

you don't speak for all law bureaus nor are you familiar with all
available options.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51028

On 28/09/2018 14.26, nospam wrote:
> In article <g179rsF3oilU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>>> there are several encrypted email services which guarantees that nobody
>>>>> other than the sender or recipient can read the contents, which are
>>>>> used by lawyers and many others who want secure transit. some are free,
>>>>> some offer paid tiers above free and some are paid only, depending on
>>>>> various options such as number of mailboxes, email volume, custom
>>>>> domain, etc. some are open source and can be audited. at least one
>>>>> lists gdpr compliance.
>>>>>
>>>>> don't dismiss it because of your own unfamiliarity with the products.
>>>>
>>>> Does that include setting PGP on his own?
>>>
>>> no.
>>>
>>>> Or does it assume that his IT
>>>> professional hired by the bureau sets that or some other service?
>>>
>>> no.
>>
>> Then it does not apply for a law bureau.
> 
> it does not disqualify it for being used.
> 
> you don't speak for all law bureaus nor are you familiar with all
> available options.
> 

And you do? ROTFL!  X'-)

-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51029

In article <g17ej9F4p2jU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>> there are several encrypted email services which guarantees that nobody
> >>>>> other than the sender or recipient can read the contents, which are
> >>>>> used by lawyers and many others who want secure transit. some are free,
> >>>>> some offer paid tiers above free and some are paid only, depending on
> >>>>> various options such as number of mailboxes, email volume, custom
> >>>>> domain, etc. some are open source and can be audited. at least one
> >>>>> lists gdpr compliance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> don't dismiss it because of your own unfamiliarity with the products.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does that include setting PGP on his own?
> >>>
> >>> no.
> >>>
> >>>> Or does it assume that his IT
> >>>> professional hired by the bureau sets that or some other service?
> >>>
> >>> no.
> >>
> >> Then it does not apply for a law bureau.
> > 
> > it does not disqualify it for being used.
> > 
> > you don't speak for all law bureaus nor are you familiar with all
> > available options.
> 
> And you do? ROTFL!  X'-)

i'm not the one making the decision to use any particular system.

i'm simply telling you of their existence, which you refuse to
acknowledge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50958

On 27/09/18 03:20, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 26/09/2018 14.56, nospam wrote:
>> In article <g122hjF19bmU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> People with which I needed to use encryption were unable to set any
>>>>> encryption method up. A lawyer, for instance. I would have to go to his
>>>>> office and teach him.
>>>>
>>>> use an encrypted email service. there's nothing to set up. all they
>>>> need is a browser or an app on their phone.
>>>
>>> That would require a binding contract and spend money, which they did
>>> not want to do.
>>
>> no it wouldn't. it only needs a mutual agreement to use an encrypted
>> medium. there are free options as well as paid ones. choose whichever
>> one works best for all parties involved.
> 
> Not for a lawyer, it wouldn't. He would be directly liable if the email
> gets intercepted or somehow compromised.
> 
>>
>> lawyers should be using such a system anyway because they are required
>> to keep certain information confidential.
> 
> Good old paper and couriers.
> 
> 
A lawuer recently requitred me to use a secure logon to download email 
because at some level their mail system identifed that I wasnt using TLS 
or something.



-- 
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is 
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50975

On 27/09/2018 01.52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 27/09/18 03:20, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 26/09/2018 14.56, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <g122hjF19bmU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> People with which I needed to use encryption were unable to set any
>>>>>> encryption method up. A lawyer, for instance. I would have to go
>>>>>> to his
>>>>>> office and teach him.
>>>>>
>>>>> use an encrypted email service. there's nothing to set up. all they
>>>>> need is a browser or an app on their phone.
>>>>
>>>> That would require a binding contract and spend money, which they did
>>>> not want to do.
>>>
>>> no it wouldn't. it only needs a mutual agreement to use an encrypted
>>> medium. there are free options as well as paid ones. choose whichever
>>> one works best for all parties involved.
>>
>> Not for a lawyer, it wouldn't. He would be directly liable if the email
>> gets intercepted or somehow compromised.
>>
>>>
>>> lawyers should be using such a system anyway because they are required
>>> to keep certain information confidential.
>>
>> Good old paper and couriers.
>>
>>
> A lawuer recently requitred me to use a secure logon to download email
> because at some level their mail system identifed that I wasnt using TLS
> or something.

Google might say that thing, too. I read something about it.


-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50898

aol only

dizum crossposted recklessly:
> Hackers target real estate deals, with devastating impact
> 
> <https://www.yahoo.com/news/hackers-target-real-estate-deals-devastating-impact-015558592.html>

The article says buyers' payment was waylaid.  The article also says 
they recovered from a settlement from the bank, settlement company, and 
realtor. The article also says:

"the scam that befell the Butchers was well-known in the real estate 
industry and easily preventable."

I don't think the pgp suggestion is the right answer to this issue.  The 
tech is useful for various things, but I don't believe this issue.  The 
precise details of exactly how it came down and how it should have been 
prevented are not provided.

Considering the message source and its crosspost, the OP is actually a 
troll, but I believe troll message content can be handled or replied 
without participating in the trollish crossposting.

-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux

csiph-web