Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L
It means as well as protecting some users, they are not protecting some others. their email will no longer be able to be sent or received as secure as it was or should be by not being able to 'lock' it from others.
|
There are other ways to protect information sent by email other than by password protecting compressed files. Indeed, there are many ways to protect information, and I would suggest that when you are using a consumer ISP's email servers you are already failing to operate at the most secure level. Most people don't encrypt email, never mind password protect their attachments. Those processes are often abused, and Virgin have decided that the security risk to other internet users from their servers being used in such a way is greater than the security benefit to a proportion of their users from allowing them to be used in that way. Again, there are other ways to securely transmit information, and I will be honest, "password protected" email attachments is not one of them.
You're going to keep going round in circles here. This is one of those issues like wearing seatbelts or speeding - there is no point in denying that in some accidents not wearing a seatbelt is beneficial, or that in some cases it is safe (or indeed safer) to go above the statute speed limit. However, in the vast, indeed,
overwhelming majority of cases it is better to wear a seatbelt or to obey the speed limit. It's a cost/benefit analysis. The odds of you being in an accident where not wearing a seatbelt is useful are tiny in comparison to those where it would be.
The same is the case here, with these email rules. The features you are rattling on about are offered by some providers, but Virgin are a mass-market ISP. They will endeavour to offer the
least complicated solution, to the extent that they will only offer
one. They will err on the side of simplicity, and they will tend to value convenience over security, with the further addendum that convenience primarily extends to their efforts in maintaining and operating their network.
So, to reiterate - the feature you want is used more for abuse than security, notwithstanding its utility for either. Virgin are eager to reduce abuse, and there are other means of securing email. One policy for all users reduced administrative headaches, so they turn it off.
Now, as for your argument that there should be a magic switch that Virgin can flick that would allow you to send password protected attachments through their SMTP servers, there is, sort of, but it is not in their interest to use it. How, pray tell, would you determine who could be trusted to use the feature? It's on a par with the "magic technical test" or the "secret formula" that people hope for when they phone technical support - it's a nonsense, a desperate hope that'd ultimately be self-defeating. The easier alternative is to allow customers to use other SMTP servers, which Virgin... do.
You seem to continually attribute to malice, or, indeed, maternal instinct what can most easily be explained by Virgin's unwillingness to extend any more than the minimum effort for what amounts to the maximum profit. I don't think it "nanny" behaviour to suggest that in general it's not a good idea to jump off of bridges. Specific circumstances might mean that it's different, but advising you against behaviours that can cause you and others problems when you are using a service that someone else provides and administers is hardly disenfranchisement.