The times article had no definite answer.

It's not easy to properly do secure email - all of the protocol standards and "standard" server implementations predate most encryption efforts.

It would be extremely surprising if the emails were encrypted on the server.

with a personal email account is incredibly difficult. It sounds like its reasonable to expect that they weren't. Blows. My. Mind.

And not in a good way. :[

They did not know she set up her own domain. In other words, they were talking out their asses.

They'll gladly host your MX records and act as your email server.

Email protocols and server implementations predate most modern encryption schemes. As a result, really securing email is very hard. Sure, you can slap SSL or TLS on the connection between you and the mail server, but that mail server probably doesn't encrypt its database.

And when you actually send the email it has to be unencrypted, or you and your recipient have to have exchanged encryption keys. Which is not easy to set up on any common email client.

In other words, almost nobody bothers to properly secure email. It is exceptionally unlikely that whoever hosted Clinton's email service did so.

Until you have some facts, you're just bloviating like these "experts" were.

I've administered email servers and DNS servers for quite a long time. Feel free to explain that I'm bloviating, too.

It's easy to say people are bloviating when you aren't willing to hear what they are stating.

I'm not just a politically interested animal, I'm a human being that has a job other than pumping up buzz for politicians. I actually care about the direction our country is going in, that's why I became interested in politics to begin with. Along with my "hobbyist" type political interests, I have a job that involves administration of the very email servers so many are now suddenly experts at.

I know very well what is going on here, and I was just as pissed when Bush and Cheney did it.

I'd wager that others know, too. We don't all have "stupid" written on our foreheads, so pretending we are is not going to work very well.

Well...adopted as a standard in 2001. Rijndael was developed in 1998.

Because the protocols predate the encryption, they can not have the encryption built in to the protocols. Properly applying encryption after-the-fact is always difficult.

Those are facts. You not liking the implications does not turn them into "not facts".

Sending a secure email requires securely exchanging keys with every single recipient before you send the email. To believe someone makes that level of effort before sending any emails is to believe someone tunes up their car every day before they drive. Yes it's possible. Might even be advisable. But is so rare you can assume it does not happen until told otherwise.

You were trying to refute the claim that she used gmail or yahoo by claiming having her own domain proved she was not. That is wrong. You can have your own domain and still use their services.

My claim is it doesn't matter if she used gmail or yahoo or her own mail server. Properly doing email security is so cumbersome that it is exceptionally unlikely she did.

banging your head against a brick wall. I pretty much gave up in another thread because it got so ridiculous that it was like teaching the multiplication tables to a cat. The cat got annoyed because it wasn't interested and I got annoyed because the cat wasn't interested.

Humongous security hole. She was just the Secretary of State, though, so no chance anything of national security was discussed.

Obama is too trusting.

He should have kept a closer eye on her.

and note that pages does not mean one email per page, were what her staffers decided to turn over to the government.

The point of the regulation is to not let the official or their staffers filter what gets archived.

. . why didn't she use the federal government's secure e-mail system that was created solely for that purpose?

Why use a personal e-mail system to conduct official government business?
Why put high-level conversations with e-mail at risk and take the chance of being hacked?
And what does that say about her attitude towards national security?

This is dumber than dawgshit!

1- for my business, where I want a record
2- for internet sign-ups which generate junk-mail
3- for informal communication with friends and associates which I may refer to in the future
4- for my girlfriend, who I never want anyone else to see, but I will save them for my own use

Maybe she had a account to communicate with Bill about things

that's her entire foreign policy cred down the shitter. China could have been reading all her emails, for all we know.

You have to encrypt the connection between your mail client and the server. This is trivial. You also have to encrypt your local storage of the emails, or not store them. Some mail clients screw this up, but others do OK.

You have to encrypt the database of emails on the server. This is hard, but can be given to someone who knows what they're doing.

In order to send someone an encrypted email, you have to exchange encryption keys first. This is very hard. No common email client makes this easy, and it is very easy to not take enough care when transferring the keys. It also has to be done for every single person you send an email to.

As a result, it would be utterly astounding if her emails were properly encrypted. And it is extremely likely that China and Russia have all of them. Probably several other nations too. Commercial providers are not prepared for nation-level attacks, just like bank guards are not prepared to repel a foreign invasion.

That is unsettling.

Her moonbat detractors on the left will stop at nothing to slow down the Hillomotive train.

to print out funny emails to show others.

the only delicate topics discusses were with a Nigerian prince.