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 6,943 of 8,958    |
|    Alexey Fayans to Alan Ianson    |
|    -64 and -46 option missing in 101    |
|    07 May 20 01:33:41    |
      MSGID: 2:5030/1997@fidonet 5eb34264       REPLY: 1:153/757 5eb32192       CHRS: CP850 2       TZUTC: 0300       TID: FastEcho 1.46.1 43272       Hello Alan!              On Wed, 06 May 2020 at 13:34 -0700, you wrote to me:               AI>>> I say it is secure because it is! Arguing that it isn't is just        AI>>> plain silly.        AF>> No it is not. Thinking that obfuscation equals security is silly.        AI> What obfuscation and/or lack of security do you speak of?              I think I already explained it. If you cannot verify certificate that was used       for encryption, there is no security in this encryption, only obfuscation       (it's harder to read/modify communication but still possible via MitM attach       which will go unnoticed).               AI>>> We could use some kind of in house certificates in fidonet. We        AI>>> would have to build and maintain all that.        AF>> There are many options. For example, have centralized certificate        AF>> issuer or have pubkeys in nodelist or DNS. The only problem is        AF>> that there is no standard to implement.        AI> If you want that info in the nodelist then the nodelist standard comes        AI> into play. If the nodelist had that info we could look there but that        AI> is not the case.              I didn't say I wanted it there. It was just an option, one of many.               AI> If my current certificate is not good enough then what would be and        AI> why?              You are using certificate issued by a trusted CA that matches your domain       specified in nodelist, which is fine. If there would be a standard for binkps       requiring INA to be present and contain a valid domain name, then mailers       could verify certificates based on domain names and trusted CA, as web       browsers do. But without a standard there is no security. If there will be an       IP address in the INA field, how can you verify certificate validity?                     ... Music Station BBS | https://bbs.bsrealm.net | telnet://bbs.bsrealm.net       --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707        * Origin: Music Station | https://ms.bsrealm.net (2:5030/1997)       SEEN-BY: 1/123 50/109 90/1 103/705 120/340 601 154/10 203/0 221/0       SEEN-BY: 221/6 226/30 227/114 702 229/101 200 426 664 1014 240/2100       SEEN-BY: 240/5138 5832 5853 6309 249/109 307 317 280/464 5003 5555       SEEN-BY: 288/100 292/854 8125 310/31 320/219 342/200 396/45 423/120       SEEN-BY: 451/30 452/166 463/68 467/888 469/122 712/848 770/1 2432/390       SEEN-BY: 2452/250 2454/119 5000/111 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40       SEEN-BY: 5019/42 5020/290 329 715 806 828 846 848 921 1042 1519 2047       SEEN-BY: 5020/2140 4441 12000 5022/128 5023/12 24 5030/1081 1900 1997       SEEN-BY: 5034/13 5053/54 57 58 5054/8 5057/19 5060/900 5064/56 5075/35       SEEN-BY: 5075/128 5080/68 102 5083/444       PATH: 5030/1997 5023/24 5020/715 4441 1042 280/5555 464 240/5832       PATH: 229/426           |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca