Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: 8MB sms pic
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 08:12:50 +0100
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <g4vbriFd1mmU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <ps1m38$4t9$1@gioia.aioe.org> <q0o8uddb1f7vltbf04tmq150i4adh8oqq1@4ax.com> <JCyCHzbblL5bFwOv@255soft.uk> <ps50fq$1o5i$1@gioia.aioe.org> <qlE6uu6DRk5bFw5Y@255soft.uk> <ps944h$8f4$1@dont-email.me> <g4qj73Fbbn3U1@mid.individual.net> <ps9ktu$f81$1@dont-email.me> <8q1nbf-hkn.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> <psb2vf$i4g$1@dont-email.me> <psb79p$16ki$1@gioia.aioe.org> <g4u1b2F4405U2@mid.individual.net> <pscnoi$5fu$1@dont-email.me> <pscu84.5sk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> <121120182025189475%nospam@nospam.invalid> <psdcht$o4q$1@dont-email.me> <121120182142286742%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net Ny7jhGvaPhyLgQtfZrtxsgxFdkyV43TnXOA1IeId24c4fclJLS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mtmzJDuAfL4eXMa+iv6ZxVYdOpo=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0
In-Reply-To: <121120182142286742%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-CA
Xref: csiph.com comp.mobile.android:57449

On 13/11/2018 02.42, nospam wrote:
> In article <psdcht$o4q$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789 
>>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no 
>>>> practical general alternative yet.
>>
>>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also 
>>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
>>
>> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative. 
> 
> yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.

Ha, ha :-p

> 
>> It's kinda
>> like Facebook. If my family only uses it I have no alternative. Course
>> I could give up SMS alerts and Facebook photos but that's not a
>> reasonable choice for me. YMMV.
> 
> it does v.

No, it doesn't.


-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.