From owner-ssh@clinet.fi Tue Dec 10 12:32:59 1996 Received: from hauki.clinet.fi (root@hauki.clinet.fi [194.100.0.1]) by hutcs.cs.hut.fi (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA09893; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:32:58 +0200 (EET) Received: (daemon@localhost) by hauki.clinet.fi (8.8.2/8.6.4) id MAA03736 for ssh-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:06:06 +0200 (EET) Received: from nukkekoti.cs.hut.fi (nukkekoti.cs.hut.fi [130.233.40.128]) by hauki.clinet.fi (8.8.2/8.6.4) with ESMTP id MAA03730 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:06:03 +0200 (EET) Received: from hiekkalaatikko.cs.hut.fi (hiekkalaatikko.cs.hut.fi [130.233.40.178]) by nukkekoti.cs.hut.fi (8.8.4/8.8.4/1.12) with ESMTP id MAA28007 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:05:44 +0200 (EET) Received: (from news@localhost) by hiekkalaatikko.cs.hut.fi (8.8.4/8.8.4/1.7) id LAA03127 for ssh-mailgate@niksula.hut.fi; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:26:16 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: hiekkalaatikko.cs.hut.fi: news set sender to owner-ssh-mailgate@niksula.hut.fi using -f Received: from GATEWAY by news.cs.hut.fi with netnews for ssh-mailgate@niksula.hut.fi (ssh@clinet.fi) To: ssh@clinet.fi Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:13:48 GMT From: jeffml@netcom.com (Jeff Lightfoot) Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) References: , , Reply-To: jeffml@pobox.com Subject: Re: Securing POP with ssh (was: F-Secure SSH for Windows 1.0 available.) Sender: owner-ssh@clinet.fi Precedence: bulk In article , Jacques Distler wrote: >In article , jeffml@netcom.com (Jeff >Lightfoot) wrote: > >>I can't go around recompiling other peoples POP servers for APOP support, >>nor can I program a client that has all my needs and APOP support. > >Why would you have to? I don't have that much influence over the NETCOM admins :-) [list of servers/clients] I don't doubt there is support for it. Just wish servers I use, enabled it. I noticed yours does. :-) >But until I see freely distributable ssh clients for every major OS, >you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the way to implement >secure authentication for POP transactions is to use SSH instead of APOP. Definitely! I agree that APOP is a good thing, but SSH fills the void where APOP is not used. (odds of SSH being available and not APOP are slim though). Now if only the POP protocol could do compression! :-) To each there own. For me APOP is not possible, but SSH encrypted / compressed USER/PASS is. My choice is a no-brainer. -- Jeff Lightfoot jeffml@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~jeffml <-- PGP Public Key --> finger/email