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 281 of 342    |
|    Wilfred van Velzen to Rob Swindell    |
|    Re: Packet password case insensitive or     |
|    23 Apr 20 11:34:10    |
      TID: FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815       RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes       TZUTC: 0200       CHRS: UTF-8 2       PID: GED+LNX 1.1.5-b20161221       MSGID: 2:280/464 5ea1612c       REPLY: 823.net_dev@1:103/705 2305df0e       Hi Rob,              On 2020-04-22 13:15:19, you wrote to me:               >> RS> Luckily, with password-protected mail sessions the norm these        >> days,        >> RS> packet passwords are kind of moot and probably should just be        >> RS> deprecated. Doubt that'll happen though.        >>        >> I don't agree here. Packet passwords provide an extra layer of security.        >> For instance without it, anyone can drop a .pkt file in your insecure        >> inbound with a falsified source address and echomail in it. If you        >> process .pkt files from your inbound automatically, it will get tossed,        >> if there is no packet password agreeded upon for the falsified source...               RS> SBBSecho will not import echomail from an insecure inbound directory.              Not every system works that way...              Bye, Wilfred.              --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815        * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)       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