REPLY: 2:280/464 5df42588   
   MSGID: 2:280/464.47@fidonet 5df48ee5   
   PID: GED+LNX 1.1.5-b20180707   
   CHRS: UTF-8 4   
   TZUTC: 0100   
   TID: CrashMail II/Linux 1.7   
    WV> Hi Alan,   
      
    WV> On 2019-12-13 15:31:14, you wrote to me:   
      
    WV>>> But I don't see it's absolute usefullness. Because binkd already   
    WV>>> encrypts (most) sessions. Only the initial connection setup is   
    WV>>> unencrypted. But that only contains already public information.   
    WV>>> Maybe if you live under a really surpressive regime, and you   
    WV>>> want to hide the fact you are communicating in fidonet? Maybe it   
    WV>>> helps a bit... But not if they take a closer look, at which IP's   
    WV>>> you communicate with all the time...   
      
    AI>> I'm not absolutely sure of all the implications. I prefer binkps   
    AI>> for the same reasons I prefer https.   
      
    WV> You can't compare binkp and http in that regard.   
      
   Of course you can. Encrypted data transmission over TCP/TLS. Content can be   
   anything.   
      
      
    * Origin: kakistocracy (2:280/464.47)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 90/1 103/705 154/10 203/0 221/0 227/114 229/101 200   
   SEEN-BY: 229/354 426 1014 240/5832 249/307 317 280/464 5003 5555 292/854   
   SEEN-BY: 310/31 342/200 396/45 423/120 712/848 770/1 2452/250   
   PATH: 280/464 229/426