[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Public TURN servers. Why Jami?

From: Сергей Петров
Subject: Re: Public TURN servers. Why Jami?
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 17:31:21 +0300

>> and so on.

Today any resource/site/service can be blacklisted by country government.
That's why i don't want to rely on some specific service or sip provider. I
prefer distributed/decentralized messengers like Jami or Tox.

> as for messaging — unfortunately, itʼs complicated.  Iʼd simply suggest
you to use more popular protocols, such as email (+ PGP), for messaging
Delta Chat is very interesting app. But it cannot be used for calls. And i
trying to find all-in-one messenger.

пт, 22 мая 2020 г. в 21:39, Dmitry Alexandrov <address@hidden>:

> Сергей Петров <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> what exactly have motivated you and your friend to experiment with
> Jami, instead of sticking with a standard, i. e. SIP-based, solution?
> >
> > Mostly it's because of privacy
> ‘Privacy’ is a buzzword, I suppose you mean end-to-end encryption.
> Using standard SIP in no way prevents you from encrypting your calls.  The
> most usable (for an end-user) protocol is called ‘ZRTP’, and itʼs somewhat
> widely adopted.
> Speaking of *droid-like OSʼes: out-of-a-box client of course does not
> support it, but two of three other free SIP-clients alive — namely Linphone
> [1] and Baresip [2] — do. (Third is our Jami, which does _not_).
> [1] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.linphone
> [2] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.tutpro.baresip
> Thatʼs for calls; as for messaging — unfortunately, itʼs complicated.  Iʼd
> simply suggest you to use more popular protocols, such as email (+ PGP),
> for messaging instead.
> Alternatively, if you and all your correspondents are willing to sacrifice
> a bit of interoperability (youʼve actually already agreed to give up much
> more of it), then you can choose Linphone as your SIP-client: itʼs pretty
> cross-platform and supports a homebrewed (sigh) protocol for encrypted
> messaging.  But it would be still much better to have interoperable
> encrypted calls, interoperable cleartext¹ messaging and only encrypted
> messaging somewhat locked to a vendor, than being completely detached from
> the federation as with Jami (the network).
> And going back to the initial point, if, regardless of using Linphone, you
> register² an account at <https://linphone.org>, theyʼll provide you with
> a relay, which may turn out to be more reliable.
> > anonymity
> Nothing forces you to reveal your name either.  Though some providers,
> like above-mentioned linphone.org, may incline you to link your account
> to a phone number, itʼs not required neither for using their services, nor
> by any means for using SIP as a federated network.
> > and so on.
> Namely?
> -
> ¹ In the same sense as this message (if we put public mailing list aside)
> it cleartext: itʼs not end-to-end encrypted; and nobody guarantees that all
> hop-to-hop connections are TLS-encapsulated (though normally they are).
> ² For anyone, who cares enough about software freedom: the last time, when
> Iʼd checked (about a year ago), signing up at linphone.org surprisingly
> did not require running nonfree software in your browser.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]