By the way, here're the headers from the last e-mail I just posted:
Received: from mail-ext1.chem.byu.edu (mailchem.byu.edu [128.187.3.5])
by uug.byu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745A53E500A0
for <[email protected]>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:24:03 -0700 (MST)
Received: from mail-int.chem.byu.edu (mail-int.chem.byu.edu
[192.168.105.38])
by mail-ext1.chem.byu.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id
o1P4O3Xu027399
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
for <[email protected]>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:24:03 -0700
Received: from [192.168.108.51] ([192.168.108.51]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail-int.chem.byu.edu (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o1P4O1tl013387
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
for <[email protected]>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:24:02 -0700
Note that I sent this from my BYU departmental file server and it
reports TLS encryption from my client to the server, and then from my
first server to my second server with TLS, but as phantom doesn't accept
TLS connections from other mail servers, the last hop (on byu's network)
was in the clear. If phantom had supported TLS on port 25, my server
could have sent the message to it encrypted the entire way.
A lot of e-mail servers will encrypt smtp traffic between servers if the
receiving server offers TLS support.
--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/
The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their
author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG.
___________________________________________________________________
List Info (unsubscribe here): http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
