Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    NET_DEV    |    Forum for Fidonet developer questions    |    342 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 279 of 342    |
|    Oli to Alan Ianson    |
|    Pssword ord ord case insensitive or not?    |
|    23 Apr 20 09:57:10    |
      REPLY: 1:153/757 5ea0b421       MSGID: 2:280/464.47@fidonet 5ea14a56       PID: GED+LNX 1.1.5-b20180707       CHRS: UTF-8 4       TZUTC: 0200       TID: CrashMail II/Linux 1.7       22 Apr 20 14:12, you wrote to me:               AI> Hello Oli,               Ol>> But you have to define the filebox for every node in advance. I        Ol>> thougt it would be nice to create a filebox for every incoming        Ol>> connection automatically. Argus is very flexible (search for        Ol>> filebox):               Ol>> http://www.artur.pl/hack/ritlabs.ii.pl/argus/hlp/eng/index.html               AI> That's an interesting idea but you'd have to communicate the location        AI> of that inbound filebox to your tosser somehow.              It could be like BSO for inbound. You just need a good specification for the       format.       E.g. Node 7:8/9 calls and received files are put into              inbound/othernet.7.8.9.0/trusted/              or if there is no session password into              inbound/othernet.7.8.9.0/unknown/              No need to specifiy an inbox for every node and point in the mailer's config.               AI>>> What I would like to see is a proper binkps protocol. We could        AI>>> drop the CRYPT option (when using binkps) and have a fully        AI>>> secure session, regardless of inbound or outbound directories.               Ol>> I don't understand how this is connected to packet passwords and        Ol>> inbound dirs.               AI> If we had a reliable/secure session we wouldn't need packet passwords        AI> or inbound directories randomly placed around the file system.              I still don't understand how that helps. What exactly do you have in mind?              The problem is the interface between mailer and tosser. Everyone with a       session password can drop anything in my shared "secure" inbound. So now we       need a packet password, because the information about the session is thrown       out the window and isn't communicated to the tosser. We wouldn't need a packet       password, if the tosser did know that the packet was delivered in an       authenticated session with node 7:8/9.                      * Origin: kakistocracy (2:280/464.47)       SEEN-BY: 1/123 18/200 90/1 103/705 120/340 601 154/10 203/0 221/0       SEEN-BY: 226/30 227/114 229/426 1014 240/5832 249/206 317 280/464       SEEN-BY: 280/5003 288/100 292/854 8125 310/31 317/3 322/757 342/200       SEEN-BY: 396/45 423/120 633/280 712/848 770/1       PATH: 280/464 229/426           |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca