How to show relation between interfaces and classes in UML?

Is this a good approach for the design?

I think yes, also because MMS if you add it can also implement ISMS too (may renaming that interface).

For IEmail it is less clear except that simplify Email and other classes working with interfaces to have one interface rather than two

I am pretty sure Christophe will say much more about that :-)

is this a good way of representing them in an UML Class Diagram or is there a better way to represent an interface and its relationship with other interfaces/classes in UML?

the relation to indicate a class implements an interface is a realization (drawn with dotted line), you used a generalization, so also adding MMS :

... ISMS implementing IMessage and IStorable

warning this is not an implementation because ISMS is an interface, same for IEmail, this is why between interfaces the inheritance is supported by a generalization rather than a realization.

I have a couple of remarks on top of Bruno's already very clear answer.

Your design

The decomposition of the interfaces into IStorable and IMessage seems at first sight to be a sound application of interface segregation principle.

Combining the two interfaces into a reusable ISMS interface instead of directly implementing them in a concrete SMS class will in this regard keep your code more maintainable, since it will easily allow to replace the SMS implementation with an alternative one (which makes sense if you consider that SMS functionality can be platform specific).

The question is however if SMS and email could not be used interchangeably. But only you can answer this question: If your design requires to keep those communication channels distinct (and maybe your real code adds some differences between the two interfaces), it's fine. But if not, it would make sense to allow such interchangeability and replace ISMS and IEmail with a single more general INotification.

Your UML representation

First of all, I'd like to reinforce Bruno's remark about the difference between generalization (plain line) and realization (dotted line).

Maybe I'm old school, but instead of using the circle for the interface, I'd advise for the more conventional interface as with a class box with the keyword «interface» above the name of the interface. Especially if you have properties and operations.

The circle is in my view better suitable for the lollipop notation of an interface. This is very practical when you have no much to say about the interface itself, but want to show what interfaces a class implements (lollipop) or is dependent on (socket). The interfaces details are then defined in another more detailed diagram. You can theoretically merge the two notations in the same diagram, but personally I find it less readable and would not advise it.