On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 18:46:07 +0100 (CET), Dave U. Random
<anonymous@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
>Some very interesting comments from a poster in The Fort
>concerning password protected posts.
Yes, Trevor has a complete misunderstanding of the situation.
>Why is there this sudden need for posters to obtain your
>e-mail address before you will be given the password?
No one 'needs' to do anything. And you know that I haven't asked
anyone for their e-mail address, so you can apologise for that
straight off.
>What is wrong with the text message as used by many
>well known and trustworthy posters?
You'll have to ask the poster. I can tell you that the poster is very
shy and took a great personal risk in order to share with you. He did
things in a way that made him feel safe. Do you want to complain about
that too?
>Is someone building a database of downloaders e-mail
>addresses by issuing the command "no password until
>you request it to your e-mail address"?
Not as far as I know.
>Going back a few years when there were very many
>helpful, security-minded regulars in The Fort (and Doc
>was then one of them) such restrictions placed on
>downloaders would have been condemned out of hand.
If you think I'm being unhelpful, please explain how.
>I know times change but I am very surprised at the
>extreme change in Doc's attitude concerning safety.
You have no concept of my 'attitude' because you haven't bothered to
ask me. You are simply making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.
>Maximum safety is when there is no contact outside
>of the group. Safety is compromised as soon as you
>publish an e-mail address in order to be sent a
>password.
Then one who is concerned about that should not post their address, I
guess.
>EVEN HUSHMAIL IS _NOT_ 100% SAFE !!!
Nope, sure isn't.
Doc NP-f31
|
|