TID: FMail-W32 2.1.3.7-B20170919   
   RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes   
   TZUTC: 0100   
   CHRS: CP850 2   
   MSGID: 2:280/5555 5df8cd03   
   REPLY: 2:310/31 5df8be07   
   Hello Richard,   
      
   On Tuesday December 17 2019 12:36, you wrote to me:   
      
    MV>> Apples and oranges. Nobogus solved problems created by rouge   
    MV>> CLIENTS. TLS does not protect against that. It only authorises   
    MV>> the /server/, not the /client/.   
      
    RM> Nope.   
    RM> You can authenticate the client as well.   
      
   Yes, I know, it can be done. But TLS was designed around a client/server model   
   and authentication of the client is not standard.   
      
    RM> But naturally then every client needs a signed certificate, and the   
    RM> server needs to verify that client certificate.   
      
   Indeed. And what is the added value of that? Session and packet passwords have   
   ended anonymus mailbombs and other bad stuff. Binkp's CRYPT protects against   
   unauthorised listeners on the channel. I am not aware of binkp's security   
   being compromised.   
      
   Plus that I still wonder what we are protecting against whom. Do we really   
   need 10 cm armour and triple locks to protect Fidonet content?   
      
      
   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