REPLY: 2:280/5555 5df5eeea   
   MSGID: 1:153/757 5df60c73   
   CHRS: UTF-8 2   
   TZUTC: -0800   
   TID: hpt/lnx 1.9.0-cur 2019-12-05   
   Hello Michiel,   
      
    MV> That depends. But not using TLS is hardly "obscurity" isn't it?   
      
   We are an obscure group today but not because we use TLS or not.   
      
    MV> I am still puzzled. I appreciate that binkd over TLS may be an   
    MV> interesting challenge from the technical POV. As such I may give it a   
    MV> try myself one day if I figure out how to do it under Windows.   
      
   I am also going to try to do this and if I can accomplish that I am going to   
   keep on doing that with links that support it.   
      
    MV> I can understand why one would use https instead of http when dealing   
    MV> with sensitive information such as bank account numbers etc. But for   
    MV> Fidonet? What are you trying to hide/protect from whom?   
      
   I have nothing to hide. I would just prefer to be secure that unsecure.   
      
    MV> TLS does not hide the meta data such as what IP communicates with what   
    MV> other IP. Binkd already has encryption on the pkt content level.   
      
   I don't want or need to hide the fact I am on and using the internet. I would   
   like passwords to be hidden from anyone who might be snooping my traffic.   
      
    MV> Plus that 99% of Fidonet is echomail and encryting echomail makes   
    MV> little or no sense. For routed netmail, using encrytion on the   
    MV> transport level does not protect against snooping by sysops en route.   
      
   Mystic's implementation of all this includes netmail optionaly. When Mystic   
   nodes use an encryption key between nodes netmail between them is encrypted. If   
    it is stored, it is stored in an encrypted state.   
      
   I know this because I had a typo in my encryption key at one time and could not   
    read my own netmail.. :)   
      
    MV> So other than the pure sensation of a technical challenge, why?   
      
   It's not sensational. It is just security. Security must be important at some   
   level or there would not be a crypt option at all. I think TLS is just the way   
   it is done today. Someone told me there was a new big thing on the horizon, I   
   forget what it was called. We may need to move to something else one day, I   
   wouldn't even guess but I would be happy with TLS. I think that will do what we   
    need to do.. probably for some time to come.   
      
      
    Ttyl :-),   
            Al   
      
   --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707   
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 57/0 90/1 103/705 153/250 154/10 203/0 220/70 221/0   
   SEEN-BY: 227/114 229/101 200 354 426 1014 240/5832 249/307 317 267/800   
   SEEN-BY: 280/464 5003 5555 292/854 310/31 317/3 342/200 396/45 423/120   
   SEEN-BY: 712/848 770/0 1 100 340 772/0 1 210 500 2452/250   
   PATH: 153/757 250 770/1 280/464 229/426