TID: FMail-W32 2.1.3.7-B20170919   
   TZUTC: 0200   
   CHRS: CP850 2   
   MSGID: 2:280/5555 5eb124fb   
   REPLY: 7590.binkd@1:103/705 23147993   
   Hello Rob,   
      
   On Sunday May 03 2020 13:13, you wrote to me:   
      
    >> AI> Binkp over TLS is secure and provides privacy in a new and robust   
    >> AI> way.   
      
    >> Security against what threats and privacy against which snooping   
    >> eyes?   
      
    RS> If the threats/snooping-eyes announced their presence and intentions,   
    RS> they wouldn't be very effective, now would they?   
      
   If you do not know who or what you are defending against, how do you know the   
   defence is working at all?   
      
    >> The biggest potential invasion of privacy in Fidonet are sysops   
    >> snooping om in transit mail. TLS does not protect against that.   
      
    RS> The second sentence is true.   
      
   We have had PGP to end to end encrypt mail for 25 years. We hardly used it   
   because most sysops would not route encrypted mail.   
      
    >> The best strategy against snooping governments is to not be of   
    >> interest.   
      
    RS> False. You're *already* being snooped on by governments and you're not   
    RS> interesting at all. You seem to be a very trusting person.   
      
   Things are not always what they seem. You conclusion is false.   
      
    >> I doubt TLS is safe against the resources of governments.   
      
    RS> It seems to be effective enough for data in-flight that they   
    RS> (resources of governments) usually go after the persistent data on   
    RS> either end of the transport instead.   
      
   So it is not effective against governments.   
      
    >>  AI> It's a natural movement forward.   
    >>   
    >> Binkd already has build in encryption.   
      
    RS> ... which is terrible.   
      
   So is the lock on my bathroom. It nevertheless serves a purpose.   
      
    >> I do not think the added value of TL is worth the effort and   
    >> overhead.   
      
    RS> It was very little effort and unnoticeable overhead.   
      
    >> Not for Fidonet...   
      
    RS> For Fidonet proper, possibly true (though that depends on the content   
    RS> of your netmail messages). For FTN, likely false.   
      
   I only use FTN for Fidonet.   
      
    >> 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.   
      
    RS> Free certs are available.   
      
   If it sounds to good to be true, it usually isn't.   
      
    >> And I do not trust LetsEncrypt.   
      
    RS> Now you don't sound like a very trusting person. That was a quick turn   
    RS> around.   
      
   No turn around, I have a very suspicious mind. A;ways had.   
      
      
   Cheers, Michiel   
      
   --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303   
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)   
   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: 280/5555 464 229/101 426