REPLY: 1:153/757 5ea16361   
   MSGID: 2:280/464.47@fidonet 5ea17666   
   PID: GED+LNX 1.1.5-b20180707   
   CHRS: UTF-8 4   
   TZUTC: 0200   
   TID: CrashMail II/Linux 1.7   
   23 Apr 20 02:36, you wrote to me:   
      
    Ol>> It could be like BSO for inbound. You just need a good   
    Ol>> specification for the format. E.g. Node 7:8/9 calls and received   
    Ol>> files are put into   
      
    Ol>> inbound/othernet.7.8.9.0/trusted/   
    Ol>> [...]   
    Ol>> No need to specifiy an inbox for every node and point in the   
    Ol>> mailer's config.   
      
    AI> I think that's an interesting idea and as Tommi suggested it could be   
    AI> made to work with environment variables or include files.   
      
    AI> I'm happy with my inbound as it is and can't think of any reason to   
    AI> make it more complicated.   
      
   The goal would be to have support for something like this in the mailer _and_   
   tosser software and have a solution that is less complicated. Realistically it   
   would be just another format with limited support ;). On the other hand it is   
   not that complicated.   
      
    AI>>> If we had a reliable/secure session we wouldn't need packet   
    AI>>> passwords or inbound directories randomly placed around the file   
    AI>>> system.   
      
    Ol>> I still don't understand how that helps. What exactly do you have   
    Ol>> in mind?   
      
    AI> I don't actually have anything in mind. I dunno how we got on this   
    AI> topic. :)   
      
   You said binkps could make packet passwords obsolete. I still want to know how   
   that would work ;).   
      
    Ol>> The problem is the interface between mailer and tosser. Everyone   
    Ol>> with a session password can drop anything in my shared "secure"   
    Ol>> inbound. So now we need a packet password, because the   
    Ol>> information about the session is thrown out the window and isn't   
    Ol>> communicated to the tosser. We wouldn't need a packet password,   
    Ol>> if the tosser did know that the packet was delivered in an   
    Ol>> authenticated session with node 7:8/9.   
      
    AI> Isn't that the difference between a secure and unsecure inbound?   
      
    AI> It is a shared inbound but it is secure.   
      
   There is a difference between   
      
   1) this pkt/file is from some authenticated node (we don't know which one)   
   2) this pkt/file is from node 7:8/9   
      
   For 1) you have to use packet passwords (if you have more than one   
   uplink/downlink).   
   With 2) the packet password would be redundant.   
      
      
    * 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