Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    BINKD    |    Support for the Internet BinKD mailer    |    8,958 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 6,435 of 8,958    |
|    Wilfred van Velzen to Oli    |
|    Re: binkp TLS    |
|    14 Dec 19 00:13:27    |
      TID: FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815       RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes       TZUTC: 0100       CHRS: UTF-8 2       PID: GED+LNX 1.1.5-b20161221       MSGID: 2:280/464 5df41d5c       REPLY: 2:280/464.47@fidonet 5df4004b       Hi Oli,              On 2019-12-13 22:03:43, you wrote to Tommi Koivula:               TK>> === Cut ===        TK>> node 2:221/6 -pipe "openssl s_client -quiet -alpn binkp -connect        TK>> news.fidonet.fi:24567" *        TK>> === Cut ===               Ol> alternatice command is               Ol> node 2:221/6 -pipe "ncat --ssl-alpn binkp *H *I" news.fidonet.fi:24567               Ol> The alpn stuff is only needed if the server demands it (e.g when running        Ol> webserver, xmpp server, binkp on port 443).              My version of ncat and openssl don't know about -alpn. Maybe my linux is too       old?              And I think it's better to use --ssl-verify with ncat.               Ol> I wonder, if we should directly jump to QUIC instead of implementing        Ol> TLS over TCP?              It's probably too new. And not supported yet on a lot of systems? How do you       check anyway? ;)              Bye, Wilfred.              --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815        * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)       SEEN-BY: 1/123 90/1 103/705 154/10 203/0 221/0 227/114 229/101 200       SEEN-BY: 229/354 426 1014 240/5832 249/307 317 280/464 5003 5555 292/854       SEEN-BY: 310/31 342/200 396/45 423/120 712/848 770/1 2452/250       PATH: 280/464 229/426           |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca