REPLY: 128.fido-net_dev@1:3634/12 230ad730
MSGID: 1:153/757 5ea5e279
CHRS: UTF-8 2
TZUTC: -0700
TID: hpt/lnx 1.9.0-cur 2020-04-15
Hello mark,

 AI>> I was talking about binkps over TLS. In that case we wouldn't
 AI>> need a session password either since we are relying on the TLS
 AI>> handshake.

 ml> are two condoms better than one?

In the case of TLS we get a secure session but that could be anyone so we
still need a session password or some mechanism to authenticate so mail from
non password protected sessions is placed in the non secure inbound.

I was wrong when I said the above.

 ml> with the speed of today's systems, the additional processing and/or
 ml> the decision to use or not the session password is negligible... the
 ml> additional space required is equally negligible, as well...

That is true but a proper binkps protocol (if there ever is one) would best be
designed simply to do what we need it to do in an efficient way.

 Ttyl :-),
         Al

--- GoldED+/LNX
 * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
SEEN-BY: 1/120 123 18/0 200 90/1 103/705 116/116 120/340 601 123/0
SEEN-BY: 123/25 50 150 160 170 755 135/300 138/146 153/250 757 6809
SEEN-BY: 153/7001 7715 154/10 30 40 50 700 203/0 221/0 6 226/30 227/114
SEEN-BY: 227/400 229/426 1014 240/5832 249/206 317 261/38 280/464
SEEN-BY: 280/5003 288/100 292/854 8125 300/4 310/31 317/3 322/757
SEEN-BY: 342/200 396/45 423/120 633/280 712/848 770/1 3634/0 12 15
SEEN-BY: 3634/24 27 50 119
PATH: 153/757 7715 3634/12 154/10 280/464 229/426