TZUTC: -0700   
   MSGID: 7590.binkd@1:103/705 23147993   
   REPLY: 2:280/5555 5eaeccbc   
   PID: Synchronet 3.18a-Win32  May  2 2020 MSC 1925   
   TID: SBBSecho 3.11-Linux r3.171 May  1 2020 GCC 6.3.0   
   COLS: 80   
   CHRS: CP437 2   
   NOTE: FSEditor.js v1.104   
     Re: Security   
     By: Michiel van der Vlist to Alan Ianson on Sun May 03 2020 03:52 pm   
      
    > Hello Alan,   
    >   
    > On Sunday May 03 2020 02:43, you wrote to me:   
    >   
    >  MV>> Even more: I say binkds is an overkill.   
    >   
    >  AI> Binkp over TLS is secure and provides privacy in a new and robust way.   
    >   
    > Security against what threats and privacy against which snooping eyes?   
      
   If the threats/snooping-eyes announced their presence and intentions, they   
   wouldn't be very effective, now would they?   
      
    > The biggest potential invasion of privacy in Fidonet are sysops snooping om   
    > in transit mail. TLS does not protect against that.   
      
   The second sentence is true.   
      
    > The best strategy   
    > against snooping governments is to not be of interest.   
      
   False. You're *already* being snooped on by governments and you're not   
   interesting at all. You seem to be a very trusting person.   
      
    > I doubt TLS is safe against the resources of governments.   
      
   It seems to be effective enough for data in-flight that they (resources of   
   governments) usually go after the persistent data on either end of the   
   transport instead.   
      
    >  AI> It's a natural movement forward.   
    >   
    > Binkd already has build in encryption.   
      
   ... which is terrible.   
      
    > I do not think the added value of TL is worth the effort and overhead.   
      
   It was very little effort and unnoticeable overhead.   
      
    > Not for Fidonet...   
      
   For Fidonet proper, possibly true (though that depends on the content of your   
   netmail messages). For FTN, likely false.   
      
    >  AI> It's not easy to do in all mailers, but if it was and it was supported   
    >  AI> and available by your links and your own mailer would you use it?   
    >   
    > I don't know. If I'd have to go through the hassle of getting a certificate   
    > and pay for it and renew it every tweo years, probably not.   
      
   Free certs are available.   
      
    > And I do not trust LetsEncrypt.   
      
   Now you don't sound like a very trusting person. That was a quick turn around.   
      
      
                                               digital man   
      
   Synchronet "Real Fact" #56:   
   Synchronet Terminal Server introduced SecureShell (SSH) support w/v3.14a   
   (2006).   
   Norco, CA WX: 74.9øF, 50.0% humidity, 11 mph ESE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs   
   --- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux   
    * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 90/1 120/340 601 220/50 226/30 227/114 702 229/100   
   SEEN-BY: 229/101 200 426 664 1014 240/5832 249/109 307 317 292/854   
   SEEN-BY: 342/200   
   PATH: 103/705 280/464 229/101 426