>> and so on. >Namely? 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 instead. 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 <d...@gnui.org>: > Сергей Петров <spy...@gmail.com> 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. >
