TID: FMail-W32 2.1.3.7-B20170919   
   TZUTC: 0100   
   CHRS: CP850 2   
   MSGID: 2:280/5555 5df5eeea   
   REPLY: 1:153/757 5df42b1e   
   Hello Alan,   
      
   On Friday December 13 2019 16:21, you wrote to me:   
      
    MV>> It may even have an adverse effect. IMHO for us small fish the   
    MV>> best defence against a hostile regime is to stay below the radar.   
    MV>> Refrain from being an interesting target, so they don't take that   
    MV>> closer look. Using TLS may draw their attention....   
      
    AI> Security by obscurity is not a good way forward.   
      
   That depends. But not using TLS is hardly "obscurity" isn't it?   
      
   I am still puzzled. I appreciate that binkd over TLS may be an interesting   
   challenge from the technical POV. As such I may give it a try myself one day   
   if I figure out how to do it under Windows.   
      
   I can understand why one would use https instead of http when dealing with   
   sensitive information such as bank account numbers etc. But for Fidonet? What   
   are you trying to hide/protect from whom? TLS does not hide the meta data such   
   as what IP communicates with what other IP. Binkd already has encryption on   
   the pkt content level. Plus that 99% of Fidonet is echomail and encryting   
   echomail makes little or no sense. For routed netmail, using encrytion on the   
   transport level does not protect against snooping by sysops en route.   
      
   So other than the pure sensation of a technical challenge, why?   
      
      
   Cheers, Michiel   
      
   --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303   
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 90/1 103/705 154/10 203/0 221/0 6 227/114 229/101 200   
   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 5019/40   
   SEEN-BY: 5020/1042 5053/58   
   PATH: 280/5555 464 229/426