On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 16:48 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 20:47 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> > William L. Maltby wrote:
> > > Putting a password, regardless of source, into a "probe", which by its
> > > very existence seems to have a higher likelihood of interception, seems
> > > foolish. If there is a problem along the intermediate steps (if any) and
> > > somebody is examining stuff, for righteous or nefarious reasons, ...
> > >
> >
> > the passwd is sent to the email address its meant for. if you have
>
> If you have to send a probe, does this not raise the possibility that
> the email is being diverted? If so, the fact that it's sent to...
> doesn't provide much feeling of security.
>
> But I *am* and amateur at this security stuff and buzzwords like "man-
> in-the-middle" may just cause excess trepidation in me. Anyway, that's
> what caused me to raise the question.
>
> I don't even like it that your (CentOS's) monthly reminder to me is sent
> with password unencrypted... and I am the only user here. If I could
> post my public key and have that monthly reminder encrypted, I'd do it.
>
You can turn it off in your preferences for the list in mailman:
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/options/centos
> > access to emails being sent to that address, its sort of academic
> > getting the passwd anyway ( click on forgot passwd, new passwd emailed
> > out ...etc )
>
> Well, it's too bad that we can't make all access via SS* w/no passwords
> required. But a new one-time-only-use password (IOW, it must be changed
> on first use and w/i a specified time interval) isn't too bad.
>
We didn't write mailman ... nor did we write the probe e-mail that it
sends.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060512/178ec670/attachment.bin
