Am 15.03.22 um 12:22 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2022-03-14 11:15, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Piet wrote:
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Ed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why does Whatsapp also have to be installed on a smart phone?
>>>>
>>>> To associate your whatsapp account with the phone number [...]
>>>
>>> Sure, but really privacy-minded people don't use whatsapp and
>>> don't have to install it. They install signal.
>>
>> I would happily install Signal, if I thought there would be anyone on
>> there I would recognise, but in reality that's unlikely ...
>
> I have Signal installed, but nobody uses it, of my contacts

The non-profit Signal Foundation was launched in February 2018 with
initial funding of $50 million from Brian Acton.[23] As of January 2021,
Signal had more than 105 million total downloads, and the platform had
approximately 40 million monthly active users.[24] Signal has been
installed on more than 50 million Android devices.[25]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 14.03.22 um 20:43 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> > Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> >> Am 14.03.22 um 16:05 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> >>> Granting permission is optional and WhatsApp doesn't "suck in your
> >>> contact database".
> >>
> >> It does. Otherwise it is not useable.
> >
> > Nope, it doesn't.
>
> Certainly it does. That's long proven. And it is the major reason why
> most companies in Europe do not allow WA on their company-phones anymore.

Earth to Joerg Lorenz: As long as you keep dishonestly silently
snipping counter arguments, you lose by definition.

And FYI, in our country - and probably many/most others - loads of
companies and other institutions use WhatsApp to communicate, both
internally and with their customers, clients, etc..

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 14.03.22 um 20:41 schrieb Andy Burns:
> > Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >
> >> Granting permission is optional and WhatsApp doesn't "suck in your
> >> contact database". but only stores a cryptographic hash value of the
> >> Non-user's phone numbers:
> >
> > Fair enough.
>
> And WA is the only one that can decrypt this hash value and misuse it.

<barf!>

You *really* have no idea what you're talking about, have you!?

Just keep on dishonestly silently snipping the counter arguments,
you're not fooling anyone but yourself. The price of tinfoil is going
up, so stock up.

On 15/03/2022 15.10, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 15.03.22 um 12:22 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 2022-03-14 11:15, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Piet wrote:
>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> Ed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why does Whatsapp also have to be installed on a smart phone?
>>>>>
>>>>> To associate your whatsapp account with the phone number [...]
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but really privacy-minded people don't use whatsapp and
>>>> don't have to install it. They install signal.
>>>
>>> I would happily install Signal, if I thought there would be anyone on
>>> there I would recognise, but in reality that's unlikely ...
>>
>> I have Signal installed, but nobody uses it, of my contacts
>
> The non-profit Signal Foundation was launched in February 2018 with
> initial funding of $50 million from Brian Acton.[23] As of January 2021,
> Signal had more than 105 million total downloads, and the platform had
> approximately 40 million monthly active users.[24] Signal has been
> installed on more than 50 million Android devices.[25]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)

Yes, and I am one of those that installed it. Only 4 of my 260 contacts
appear in it, and not one of those four are using it, at least with me.

Stats are irrelevant.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp>

The client application was created by WhatsApp Inc. of Mountain View,
California, which was acquired by Facebook in February 2014 for
approximately US$19.3 billion.[16][17] It became the world's most
popular messaging application by 2015,[18][19] and had more than 2
billion users worldwide by February 2020.[20] By 2016 it had become the
primary means of Internet communication in regions including Latin
America, the Indian subcontinent, and large parts of Europe and Africa.[18]

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Frank Slootweg wrote:

>> And WA is the only one that can decrypt this hash value and misuse it.
>
> <barf!>
>
> You *really* have no idea what you're talking about, have you!?

Joerg Lorenz has the same IQ as Alan Baker so what you're doing is arguing
with a child of kindergarten level.

Nonetheless, I want to make an adult point that I, for one, thank Frank
Slootweg for bringing up the hash information about WhatsApp contacts.

Nobody else but Frank explained how it works (in another thread a few weeks
ago) where I think what happens is something like this (but I'm not sure).

1. The contacts have to be in your default sqlite location
2. WA will create a hash (one way?) on the phone, I think
3. That one-way (we hope) hash is based on what?
a) the phone number only?
b) the name & phone number?
c) whatever is in the contacts record?
4. That hash of your entire contacts db is uploaded to the WA server
(I can't see how the stripping can be done on the phone, can you?)
6. The WA server compares every hash to known WA accounts
7. If the account isn't known, then the WA server (we hope) deletes it
8. The WA server feeds back to the phone just the accounts that it owns
9. The WA app on the phone will display only those WA accounts inside it

Notice this may not be right, but even if it is, there are unknowns to me.
A. If you change the contact by a single character, does the hash change?
B. Is the hash done on the phone or on the WA servers?
C. Is the hash one way only?

*How does the WhatsApp contacts database hash work?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/voLZQ9KON60>

Am 15.03.22 um 23:53 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> On 15/03/2022 15.10, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)
>
> Yes, and I am one of those that installed it. Only 4 of my 260 contacts
> appear in it, and not one of those four are using it, at least with me.
>
> Stats are irrelevant.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp>
>
> The client application was created by WhatsApp Inc. of Mountain View,
> California, which was acquired by Facebook in February 2014 for
> approximately US$19.3 billion.[16][17] It became the world's most
> popular messaging application by 2015,[18][19] and had more than 2
> billion users worldwide by February 2020.[20] By 2016 it had become the
> primary means of Internet communication in regions including Latin
> America, the Indian subcontinent, and large parts of Europe and Africa.[18]

As you said: Stats are irrelevant.

Whats App is kindergarten-software for mentally handicapped people.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 15.03.22 um 23:53 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> Stats are irrelevant.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp>
>
> The client application was created by WhatsApp Inc. of Mountain View,
> California, which was acquired by Facebook in February 2014 for
> approximately US$19.3 billion.[16][17] It became the world's most
> popular messaging application by 2015,[18][19] and had more than 2
> billion users worldwide by February 2020.[20] By 2016 it had become the
> primary means of Internet communication in regions including Latin
> America, the Indian subcontinent, and large parts of Europe and Africa.[18]

Security is not irrelevant:

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/4-security-threats-whatsapp-users-need-know/
https://www.appsverse.com/blog/is-whatsapp-safe-and-private-tw/

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> I'm sure lawyers would have a field day if WhatsApp violated its own policy

That sounds all well and good, except facebook (another service I am a non-user
of) said they wouldn't link facebook IDs to whatsapp IDs without making it an
opt-in ... then changed their terms and did it as an opt-out, took the fine as a
cost of doing business.

On 2022-03-16 06:43, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 15.03.22 um 23:53 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>> Stats are irrelevant.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp>
>>
>> The client application was created by WhatsApp Inc. of Mountain View,
>> California, which was acquired by Facebook in February 2014 for
>> approximately US$19.3 billion.[16][17] It became the world's most
>> popular messaging application by 2015,[18][19] and had more than 2
>> billion users worldwide by February 2020.[20] By 2016 it had become the
>> primary means of Internet communication in regions including Latin
>> America, the Indian subcontinent, and large parts of Europe and Africa.[18]
>
> Security is not irrelevant:
>
> https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/4-security-threats-whatsapp-users-need-know/
> https://www.appsverse.com/blog/is-whatsapp-safe-and-private-tw/

Irrelevant. The decision on what to use is not mine to make.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-15 16:26, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 14.03.22 um 20:43 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
>>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>>> Am 14.03.22 um 16:05 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
>>>>> Granting permission is optional and WhatsApp doesn't "suck in your
>>>>> contact database".
>>>>
>>>> It does. Otherwise it is not useable.
>>>
>>> Nope, it doesn't.
>>
>> Certainly it does. That's long proven. And it is the major reason why
>> most companies in Europe do not allow WA on their company-phones anymore.
>
> Earth to Joerg Lorenz: As long as you keep dishonestly silently
> snipping counter arguments, you lose by definition.
>
> And FYI, in our country - and probably many/most others - loads of
> companies and other institutions use WhatsApp to communicate, both
> internally and with their customers, clients, etc..

Yep.

I have seen one company, very high tech with technology to hide and
protect, that asks its employees to avoid wasap. But they do have it.
And also signal.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > I'm sure lawyers would have a field day if WhatsApp violated its own policy
>
> That sounds all well and good, except facebook (another service I am a
> non-user of) said they wouldn't link facebook IDs to whatsapp IDs
> without making it an opt-in ... then changed their terms and did it as
> an opt-out, took the fine as a cost of doing business.

True, but there's a difference between what Facebook does to their
users and what WhatsApp/Facebook/Meta does to *non*-users.

The latter will get them in more/bigger problems with higher fines
(and possibly worse), especially in the EU with our much more strict
privacy laws.

(N.B. I'm also not a Facebook user, for obvious reasons.)

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-03-15 16:26, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> >> Am 14.03.22 um 20:43 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> >>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> >>>> Am 14.03.22 um 16:05 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> >>>>> Granting permission is optional and WhatsApp doesn't "suck in your
> >>>>> contact database".
> >>>>
> >>>> It does. Otherwise it is not useable.
> >>>
> >>> Nope, it doesn't.
> >>
> >> Certainly it does. That's long proven. And it is the major reason why
> >> most companies in Europe do not allow WA on their company-phones anymore.
> >
> > Earth to Joerg Lorenz: As long as you keep dishonestly silently
> > snipping counter arguments, you lose by definition.
> >
> > And FYI, in our country - and probably many/most others - loads of
> > companies and other institutions use WhatsApp to communicate, both
> > internally and with their customers, clients, etc..
>
> Yep.
>
> I have seen one company, very high tech with technology to hide and
> protect, that asks its employees to avoid wasap. But they do have it.
> And also signal.

Most companies and other institutions are just being practical.

Just compare it to e-mail. That's also used in many cases where
personal or otherwise sensitive information is involved. But in most
cases there's no realistic alternative for 'fast' electronic
communication, so e-mail is used.

The same goes for Instant Messaging, so WhatsApp is used. That - for
IM - there *theoretically* are alternatives is hardly relevant, because
very few people can/do use those alternatives, so for all intents and
purposes, they don't exist.

Bottom line: As with similar recent (non-)discussions, let those who
think they have a more suitable alternative, use it, but ignore them
when they ignore reality.

Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Just compare it to e-mail. That's also used in many cases where
> personal or otherwise sensitive information is involved. But in
> most cases there's no realistic alternative for 'fast' electronic
> communication, so e-mail is used.

So what you see is all sorts of organizations setting up "secure mail"
or using that of third parties. The result: instead of having your mail
in just one place, you have to login here and there an everywhere to
get all their mail. And sensitive? Lots of said organisations consider
all their mail "sensitive" without asking the recipient/client/customer.

> The same goes for Instant Messaging, so WhatsApp is used.

They call it practical, but for a large part it's laziness.

> That - for IM - there *theoretically* are alternatives is hardly
> relevant, because very few people can/do use those alternatives,
> so for all intents and purposes, they don't exist.

They do exist, they are relevant, but here too it's laziness plus a lot
of ignorance, kept alive by postings like yours.

> Bottom line: As with similar recent (non-)discussions, let those who
> think they have a more suitable alternative, use it, but ignore them
> when they ignore reality.

Bullshit. Get a life with your view of "reality". A "reality" that really
deserves to be ignored and corrected.

-p

Piet wrote:

> They do exist, they are relevant, but here too it's laziness plus a lot
> of ignorance, kept alive by postings like yours.

In Frank's defense, he brought up a good point that WhatsApp does "say" that
they strip out the contacts that aren't WhatsApp members.

And, again to Frank's defense, Frank even implied how the process works
(e.g., via a hash although we don't know what that hash is based upon yet).

By contrast, simply screaming out (like Joerg did) that WhatsApp is stealing
your contacts without any evidence to that fact is no different than what
the iKooks do which is base their claims on nothing but their imagination.

To my credit, I am trying to nail down what WhatsApp actually does with
contacts, but I myself have worked around that issue long ago as you can use
WhatsApp without contacts rather easily (chat, phone, and dialer all work).
<https://i.postimg.cc/636XBckk/whatsapp01.jpg> No need for WA contacts

More details here.
*How does the WhatsApp contacts database hash work?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/voLZQ9KON60>

On 2022-03-16 20:57, Piet wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Just compare it to e-mail. That's also used in many cases where
>> personal or otherwise sensitive information is involved. But in
>> most cases there's no realistic alternative for 'fast' electronic
>> communication, so e-mail is used.
>
> So what you see is all sorts of organizations setting up "secure mail"
> or using that of third parties. The result: instead of having your mail
> in just one place, you have to login here and there an everywhere to
> get all their mail. And sensitive? Lots of said organisations consider
> all their mail "sensitive" without asking the recipient/client/customer.

Yet I have never seen any company use encrypted email. Not my bank,
certainly. Compared to plain email, whatsapp is miles safer.

>> The same goes for Instant Messaging, so WhatsApp is used.
>
> They call it practical, but for a large part it's laziness.
>
>> That - for IM - there *theoretically* are alternatives is hardly
>> relevant, because very few people can/do use those alternatives,
>> so for all intents and purposes, they don't exist.
>
> They do exist, they are relevant, but here too it's laziness plus a lot
> of ignorance, kept alive by postings like yours.

Wrong.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Am 16.03.22 um 14:56 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2022-03-16 06:43, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Security is not irrelevant:
>>
>> https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/4-security-threats-whatsapp-users-need-know/
>> https://www.appsverse.com/blog/is-whatsapp-safe-and-private-tw/
>
> Irrelevant. The decision on what to use is not mine to make.

Are you so dependent?
I'm very sorry for you.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

In article <dc0agi-ljo.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> > So what you see is all sorts of organizations setting up "secure mail"
> > or using that of third parties. The result: instead of having your mail
> > in just one place, you have to login here and there an everywhere to
> > get all their mail. And sensitive? Lots of said organisations consider
> > all their mail "sensitive" without asking the recipient/client/customer.
>
> Yet I have never seen any company use encrypted email. Not my bank,
> certainly. Compared to plain email, whatsapp is miles safer.

i've had banks, doctors and law firms send email notifications to log
in and read secure messages.

On 2022-03-16 22:19, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 16.03.22 um 14:56 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 2022-03-16 06:43, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Security is not irrelevant:
>>>
>>> https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/4-security-threats-whatsapp-users-need-know/
>>> https://www.appsverse.com/blog/is-whatsapp-safe-and-private-tw/
>>
>> Irrelevant. The decision on what to use is not mine to make.
>
> Are you so dependent?
> I'm very sorry for you.

Well, if my plumber, my insurance company, everybody, uses whatsap and
expect me and everybody else to use whatsapp, I have no choice in the
matter - if I want to have my water mains repaired. I can choose not to
repair it and buy bottles of water at the supermarket instead.

You can choose probably to use paper mail instead.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Am 16.03.22 um 22:46 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2022-03-16 22:19, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 16.03.22 um 14:56 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>> On 2022-03-16 06:43, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> Security is not irrelevant:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/4-security-threats-whatsapp-users-need-know/
>>>> https://www.appsverse.com/blog/is-whatsapp-safe-and-private-tw/
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. The decision on what to use is not mine to make.
>>
>> Are you so dependent?
>> I'm very sorry for you.
>
> Well, if my plumber, my insurance company, everybody, uses whatsap and
> expect me and everybody else to use whatsapp, I have no choice in the
> matter - if I want to have my water mains repaired. I can choose not to
> repair it and buy bottles of water at the supermarket instead.

Difficult to believe. I have never ever seen professional companies
using such an unprofessional tool to do business.
But I will be honest and say I can judge that only for Central Europe
and North America.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Just compare it to e-mail. That's also used in many cases where
> > personal or otherwise sensitive information is involved. But in
> > most cases there's no realistic alternative for 'fast' electronic
> > communication, so e-mail is used.
>
> So what you see is all sorts of organizations setting up "secure mail"
> or using that of third parties. The result: instead of having your mail
> in just one place, you have to login here and there an everywhere to
> get all their mail. And sensitive? Lots of said organisations consider
> all their mail "sensitive" without asking the recipient/client/customer.

I only see "secure mail" from some medical organizations, like my GP.
Very few others. Things like buying/selling real estate, getting a
mortgage, updating wills, etc. are all done by regular e-mail, including
the pro forma signing of documents (only the formal signing is done face
to face). Yes, that's somewhat - and possibly even quite - risky, but
that's common practice in The Netherlands (and probably most other
European countries).

> > The same goes for Instant Messaging, so WhatsApp is used.
>
> They call it practical, but for a large part it's laziness.
>
> > That - for IM - there *theoretically* are alternatives is hardly
> > relevant, because very few people can/do use those alternatives,
> > so for all intents and purposes, they don't exist.
>
> They do exist, they are relevant, but here too it's laziness plus a lot
> of ignorance, kept alive by postings like yours.

When the other partieS (plural) don't have/know_about/care_about/
<whatever> alternatives, any presumed 'laziness' and 'ignorance' is
irrelevant. It's like "Everyone should use Linux!", not gonna happen.
'Even' you and I use Windows.

As to "kept alive by postings like yours", I doubt that the average
WhatsApp user subscribes to Usenet newsgroups! :-)

> > Bottom line: As with similar recent (non-)discussions, let those who
> > think they have a more suitable alternative, use it, but ignore them
> > when they ignore reality.
>
> Bullshit. Get a life with your view of "reality". A "reality" that really
> deserves to be ignored and corrected.

Easy does it! As you hopefully know, I value your opinions and am sure
you are making the right decisions for your needs and matching your
opinions, but realize that it's your opinion, nothing more, nothing
less.

The reality I'm talking about is how many people use WhatsApp - and
how often - versus the number of people who use other more secure IM
platforms. You may not like it, I may not like it, but it's reality.

And let's face it, is the average WhatsApp message so sensitive that
WhatsApp's alleged 'low security' isn't secure enough?

Again, look at the e-mail example, AFAIK WhatsApp isn't less secure
than (regular) e-mail, so what's wrong with using WhatsApp for IM, where
otherwise e-mail would be used for non-instant messaging?

Case in point: What's wrong with Carlos and his plumber communicating
via WhatsApp?

On 3/17/2022 8:40 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> I only see "secure mail" from some medical organizations, like my
> GP.

My docs handle appointments over email but for any medical stuff
like test results I'm instructed to sign in to my account on their
"secure" webpage to get the info...

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/2022 8:40 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > I only see "secure mail" from some medical organizations, like my
> > GP.
>
> My docs handle appointments over email but for any medical stuff
> like test results I'm instructed to sign in to my account on their
> "secure" webpage to get the info...

Here most test results - including from blood and urine tests sent in
from the GP's office - are available on the secure websites of the
respective hospitals. They are secured by a unique country-wide personal
ID (DigiD) with (oh no!) 2SV/2FA.

On 2022-03-17 01:07, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 16.03.22 um 22:46 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 2022-03-16 22:19, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 16.03.22 um 14:56 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>>> On 2022-03-16 06:43, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> Security is not irrelevant:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/4-security-threats-whatsapp-users-need-know/
>>>>> https://www.appsverse.com/blog/is-whatsapp-safe-and-private-tw/
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. The decision on what to use is not mine to make.
>>>
>>> Are you so dependent?
>>> I'm very sorry for you.
>>
>> Well, if my plumber, my insurance company, everybody, uses whatsap and
>> expect me and everybody else to use whatsapp, I have no choice in the
>> matter - if I want to have my water mains repaired. I can choose not to
>> repair it and buy bottles of water at the supermarket instead.
>
> Difficult to believe. I have never ever seen professional companies
> using such an unprofessional tool to do business.

LOL.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-16 22:41, nospam wrote:
> In article <dc0agi-ljo.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> So what you see is all sorts of organizations setting up "secure mail"
>>> or using that of third parties. The result: instead of having your mail
>>> in just one place, you have to login here and there an everywhere to
>>> get all their mail. And sensitive? Lots of said organisations consider
>>> all their mail "sensitive" without asking the recipient/client/customer.
>>
>> Yet I have never seen any company use encrypted email. Not my bank,
>> certainly. Compared to plain email, whatsapp is miles safer.
>
> i've had banks, doctors and law firms send email notifications to log
> in and read secure messages.

There is some of that, but only for automated messages from the central
services of whatever company.

If a bank employee wants to say something to me, he may use whatsapp,
email (not encrypted), or even phone. Same for my (private) doctors.

I have heard of some bank having a messaging system that can be used by
employees or clients. It is safer, but it is a nuisance.

My national health system doctors use an in house limited message
system. I can not attach files of any kind, like reports of photos. If I
post a message, the doctor answers, but I can not reply to that, I have
to start a new post. The system itself is secure, the admins seem to be
paranoid.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-17 17:25, AJL wrote:
> On 3/17/2022 8:40 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> I only see "secure mail" from some medical organizations, like my
>> GP.
>
> My docs handle appointments over email but for any medical stuff
> like test results I'm instructed to sign in to my account on their
> "secure" webpage to get the info...
>

Yeah, me too, but if I have to ask something about the report to a
doctor we would use plain unencrypted mail which could include talk
about "sensitive" items in the report. We could use WhatsApp, which is
somewhat safer than plain email.

--
Cheers, Carlos.