From: address@is.invalid   
      
   VanguardLH,   
      
   > This thread asks about using a tunneling proxy to add SSL/TLS   
   > encryption to connects from some e-mail client.  You also mentioned   
   > slypheed looks like what you'll use.  Yet sylpheed's doc pages says   
   > it supports SSL/TLS.  So, yes, I got confused in this thread,   
      
   My apologies.  I thought that the line "However, yesterday I realized that   
   there is a possible another solution" (apologies for having used "another"   
   instead of "other") would have made clear that I was considering something   
   else than replacing my email client.   
      
   > Okay, now that the topic has changed to "Looking for tunneling proxy   
   > to add SSL/TLS to Outlook Express", yep, that'll work.   
      
   Replace "Outlook Express" with "an email client which does not have SSL" and   
   I'll agree with you.  That in my case its OE doesn't matter in the   
   slightest.   
      
   > So, I take it that whomever are your unidentified e-mail providers   
   > do *not* require OAUTH2 to authenticate to their servers; else, all   
   > this sTunnel business is wasted time and effort.   
      
   As said, assuming it to be the other way around when its not causes the same   
   waste of time   
      
   But yes, that is a risk you always run.  Though in my case it looks like   
   that me being able to send and receive email using Sylpheed - without having   
   configured it for oath usage - seems to indicate its not needed.   
      
   And to me that makes sense : I'm using an encrypted connection and am able   
   to correctly supply a username/password combination.  I'm not sure what   
   level of security oauth would add to it.   
      
   > The longer the chain, the more fragile it gets.   
      
   True. And I'm well aware of that, don't worry.   
      
   Regards,   
   Rudy Wieser   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)