Hello Steven,

 MvdV>> The operative word is /more/. Intelligence agencies monitor
 MvdV>> e-mail. Not netmail AFAIK.

 SH> The spooks monitor e-mail through methods like Carnivore
 SH> with limited success.

Points is the /do/ monitor e-mail on a routine basis.

 SH> One supposes that if they had reason to believe netmail was
 SH> carrying any kind of sensitive traffic, they might monitor
 SH> netmail as well.

I suppose they would like to do that, but they can't monitor netmail
without first knowing where to look. If the netmail is send directly, they
would either have to gain physical access to one of the systems or they
would have to tap the telephone line and decode the modem signals. In order
to do that they must already have gained some information that leads to
suspicion by other means. E-mail on the other hand can be massively
monitored by robots searching for specific keywords or strings to direct
them to areas that warrant further investigation. It is this first step in
the screening that is not possible with netmail.

 MvdV>> Maybe. Fact is that contrary to the InterNet, FTN technology was
 MvdV>> not intercepted.

 SH> The interception would not be easy

It would be impossible without the first step of pointing out the parties
that need monitoring. One can not monitor ALL dfata traffic over telephone
lines.

 SH> but "our" spies have always had access to better technologies
 SH> than their Russian counterparts.

Famous last words....

 SH> And if they found trying to deal with packets being transmitted
 SH> over telephone lines by protocols such as ZModem too difficult,
 SH> they would scoop the computers at both ends.

That is next to impossible without the owners of those computers being aware of it.

 MvdV>> Was it done by actually tapping the lines or was it done by just
 MvdV>> reading the echomail?

 SH> Jerry Schwartz has given his response.

And shown that yoi gave misleading information. The "transmitted over
telephone lines" part was irrelevant.

 MvdV>> It can't be less effort than it is now. I just type in the
 MvdV>> messages and the system does the rest. I don't see how a
 MvdV>> permanent connection to the InterNet will make it even less
 MvdV>> of an effort to communicate with FidoNet systems.

 SH> All I do is type in messages, exit the reader and let Irex
 SH> take care of the rest.

Same here, except tat it is Intermail instead of IREX.

 SH> What I don't have to do is piddle around with a 'phone connection.

Neither do I. It is InterMail that does the "piddling" for me in
the small hours when I am asleep.

 SH> I think tht our long distance calling charges have now
 SH> fallen to the point that calling the U.S. for Fidonet mail
 SH> would be affordable.  But there never have been charges for
 SH> local calls over here so calls to my ISP cost nothing.

Of course they do not cost nothing. TANSTAAFL. You just pay for them in another way.

 MvdV>> handful of sysops that all used the same programme: TJ's Fido.
 MvdV>> They could all go to a new version overnight. Trying
 MvdV>> that today would surely make a lot of nodes lose contact.

 SH> Technically it might be possible but the support nodes now
 SH> give other nodes loeaves somrthing to be desired.:-)

Technically yes, practically no.

 MvdV>> Indeed it has. Up until 1995 we still had mechanical exchanges
 MvdV>> here that supported pulse dial only. Now it is all digital. But
 MvdV>> downward compatibility is 100%. All my old telephone equipment
 MvdV>> from 30 years ago still works on the modern exchanges.

 SH> That backward compatibility works only to a point because
 SH> your old equipment simply will not do things the modern
 SWH> equipment does.

It will do everything it did 30 years ago. That is why we call it DOWNward
compatible.

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.29k