Why are these people using email anyway? Just saying...you think Trump uses email to do business? No way. He either picks up the phone, meets in person, or tells his assistant what message to deliver.

Anonymous wrote:BTW, CLINTON SERVER was not hacked.

Somebody is doling out the Podesta e-mails a little at a time to keep the story going as long as possible. I'd say if we get to November 8 and we have not seen e-mails from her server, you are probably correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think securing email is that easy? One wrong click on a configuration or opening a weaponized attachment or browsing to a watering hole, and kiss your "security" good bye.

Oh, and when nation states are up against you, you really don't have a prayer.

That's why paid services are significantly more secure - they have the firewall and filtering in place to stop much of that. Not foolproof, and not NSA-proof, but much more secure than gmail/yahoo/msn.

But sometimes that lulls people into a false sense of security. If you use an AOL account and have had your account hacked once or twice, you're going to know it's a risk and perhaps will be more thoughtful about what you put into email going forward. If you have a more secure service that you (wrongfully) view as basically foolproof because you're paying for it, you're more likely to use it for sensitive materials that you'd never want to fall into a hacker's hands.

Also, whenever I've used that kind of paid service (such as an employer's system), the aggressive filters would sometimes catch valid emails we needed to receive, and so we were still instructed to regularly check our filtered mail as well. As soon as you have laypersons digging through filtered email, you've drastically lowered the effective security of your system due to what they might accidentally or ignorantly open.

You got some bad advice from your IT dept. You should not be poking through your spam folder.

I won't dispute that, but doesn't that prove my point? Having a "secure" email system through my employer would encourage me to send more sensitive communications over email, and yet they have this big human flaw in the process. But on the flip side, as an attorney I am responsible for reading all communications sent to me, and if I missed an email caught in my spam folder because I'd been instructed not to check it and that ended up materially compromising my client's case, I could face malpractice liability and/or sanctions. So who should I trust to review email in my spam folder and know what was caught accidentally? Relying on my IT department to do it for me wouldn't get me out of either of those consequences if they screw up, because ultimately the buck stops with me.

Anonymous wrote:Who would have thought that the GOP would not be able to present an actual serious platform and would have to resort to relying on Wikileaks and e-mails to try to win an election?

h

Don't care if Trump or Hillary wins. Do care if emails reveal widespread corruption and collusion. Which they do

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think securing email is that easy? One wrong click on a configuration or opening a weaponized attachment or browsing to a watering hole, and kiss your "security" good bye.

Oh, and when nation states are up against you, you really don't have a prayer.

That's why paid services are significantly more secure - they have the firewall and filtering in place to stop much of that. Not foolproof, and not NSA-proof, but much more secure than gmail/yahoo/msn.

But sometimes that lulls people into a false sense of security. If you use an AOL account and have had your account hacked once or twice, you're going to know it's a risk and perhaps will be more thoughtful about what you put into email going forward. If you have a more secure service that you (wrongfully) view as basically foolproof because you're paying for it, you're more likely to use it for sensitive materials that you'd never want to fall into a hacker's hands.

Also, whenever I've used that kind of paid service (such as an employer's system), the aggressive filters would sometimes catch valid emails we needed to receive, and so we were still instructed to regularly check our filtered mail as well. As soon as you have laypersons digging through filtered email, you've drastically lowered the effective security of your system due to what they might accidentally or ignorantly open.

You got some bad advice from your IT dept. You should not be poking through your spam folder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe how many of these leaked e-mails are gmail and AOL accounts. Rich and powerful people using free e-mail services - what are they thinking! News flash - they are worth what you pay for them. You can buy Exchange hosting for $10/mo per address - that gives you pretty decent security and allows you to configure password reset rules, retention policies, and so on. Are they that cheap, or that dumb?

They are cheap and dumb. Clinton deducted $2 for their donated underwear. The IT guy Clinton hired who went on reddit asking how to modify emails, worked as a mechanic (a fine profession but not related to IT and security) in a garage.

The older Kennedy's were like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think securing email is that easy? One wrong click on a configuration or opening a weaponized attachment or browsing to a watering hole, and kiss your "security" good bye.

Oh, and when nation states are up against you, you really don't have a prayer.

That's why paid services are significantly more secure - they have the firewall and filtering in place to stop much of that. Not foolproof, and not NSA-proof, but much more secure than gmail/yahoo/msn.

But sometimes that lulls people into a false sense of security. If you use an AOL account and have had your account hacked once or twice, you're going to know it's a risk and perhaps will be more thoughtful about what you put into email going forward. If you have a more secure service that you (wrongfully) view as basically foolproof because you're paying for it, you're more likely to use it for sensitive materials that you'd never want to fall into a hacker's hands.

Also, whenever I've used that kind of paid service (such as an employer's system), the aggressive filters would sometimes catch valid emails we needed to receive, and so we were still instructed to regularly check our filtered mail as well. As soon as you have laypersons digging through filtered email, you've drastically lowered the effective security of your system due to what they might accidentally or ignorantly open.

BTW, CLINTON SERVER was not hacked.

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think securing email is that easy? One wrong click on a configuration or opening a weaponized attachment or browsing to a watering hole, and kiss your "security" good bye.

Oh, and when nation states are up against you, you really don't have a prayer.

That's why paid services are significantly more secure - they have the firewall and filtering in place to stop much of that. Not foolproof, and not NSA-proof, but much more secure than gmail/yahoo/msn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe how many of these leaked e-mails are gmail and AOL accounts. Rich and powerful people using free e-mail services - what are they thinking! News flash - they are worth what you pay for them. You can buy Exchange hosting for $10/mo per address - that gives you pretty decent security and allows you to configure password reset rules, retention policies, and so on. Are they that cheap, or that dumb?

They are cheap and dumb. Clinton deducted $2 for their donated underwear. The IT guy Clinton hired who went on reddit asking how to modify emails, worked as a mechanic (a fine profession but not related to IT and security) in a garage.

The Clinton's IT people hired Platte River which hired and employed its own staff.

Do you really think securing email is that easy? One wrong click on a configuration or opening a weaponized attachment or browsing to a watering hole, and kiss your "security" good bye.

Oh, and when nation states are up against you, you really don't have a prayer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe how many of these leaked e-mails are gmail and AOL accounts. Rich and powerful people using free e-mail services - what are they thinking! News flash - they are worth what you pay for them. You can buy Exchange hosting for $10/mo per address - that gives you pretty decent security and allows you to configure password reset rules, retention policies, and so on. Are they that cheap, or that dumb?

They are cheap and dumb. Clinton deducted $2 for their donated underwear. The IT guy Clinton hired who went on reddit asking how to modify emails, worked as a mechanic (a fine profession but not related to IT and security) in a garage.

this

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe how many of these leaked e-mails are gmail and AOL accounts. Rich and powerful people using free e-mail services - what are they thinking! News flash - they are worth what you pay for them. You can buy Exchange hosting for $10/mo per address - that gives you pretty decent security and allows you to configure password reset rules, retention policies, and so on. Are they that cheap, or that dumb?

They are cheap and dumb. Clinton deducted $2 for their donated underwear. The IT guy Clinton hired who went on reddit asking how to modify emails, worked as a mechanic (a fine profession but not related to IT and security) in a garage.

Who would have thought that the GOP would not be able to present an actual serious platform and would have to resort to relying on Wikileaks and e-mails to try to win an election?

I cannot believe how many of these leaked e-mails are gmail and AOL accounts. Rich and powerful people using free e-mail services - what are they thinking! News flash - they are worth what you pay for them. You can buy Exchange hosting for $10/mo per address - that gives you pretty decent security and allows you to configure password reset rules, retention policies, and so on. Are they that cheap, or that dumb?