• FTSC

    From Dale Barnes@1:106/201 to All on Thursday, November 07, 2019 08:29:00
    So going to ask this to the group in this ECHO. In regards to the FTSC, what would be considered the right kind of person to be a member of this group? Someone that is a good technical writer, a developer or just someone that understands the history and technology?

    I know that I have seen posts in here in the past that someone posted about the
    position but unable to find the message.

    Just asking the question to determine what is considered the correct skills the
    people think this position should require.

    Thank you


    --- InterEcho 1.20
    * Origin: Home Of InterMail/InterEcho (1:106/201)
  • From Sean Dennis@1:18/200 to Dale Barnes on Thursday, November 07, 2019 11:42:15
    Hello Dale.

    07 Nov 19 08:29, you wrote to All:

    Just asking the question to determine what is considered the correct skills the people think this position should require.

    Unfortunately, Ward and Alexey are examples of people who shouldn't be involved
    because neither can see beyond the end of their own noses. Ward is not a member of the FTSC; rather he is an "invited guest" because of his illustrious position in Fidonet and the fact that if he wasn't invited, he'd have thrown a decades-long temper tantrum in Fidonet until he was. Alexey knows all the arcane minutae of FTN but is an ill-tempered arrogant person who thinks that by
    insulting people and using vulgar language (even if his English skills are limited) in every post that will impress people.

    What is needed on the FTSC is people like yourself who have actually worked on actual programs that are in use using FTN, like Intermail. To wit, both Ward and Alexey do know a bit about FTN but I've never seen Ward or Alexey produce any programs or anything else that would be useful outside of their positions in the network.

    Realizing that the FTSC is nothing but an overglorified and overhyped network committee that does nothing but record and document current standards is the first requirement.

    Just my opinion, of course, but I've been involved long enough to know that some members of the FTSC overfluff their pillows in an effort to impress people.

    Later,
    Sean

    --- GoldED/2 3.0.1
    * Origin: Outpost BBS * bbs.outpostbbs.net:2304 (1:18/200)
  • From Dale Barnes@1:106/201 to Sean Dennis on Thursday, November 07, 2019 13:11:17
    Realizing that the FTSC is nothing but an overglorified and
    overhyped network
    committee that does nothing but record and document current
    standards is the
    first requirement.


    Thank you for your feedback but to be clear (not directed to any one person), I
    am keeping this positive. While I have my own very personal opinions that I will keep to myself, I am trying to enjoy this for what it is....A HOBBY. While
    I did not write InterMail, I cannot take any credit there as InterMail was a result of JoHo and Peter. While I own it and have now brought it back to life (ie working again) and the new InterMail 3.0 is in the works (slow), I do this for FUN, I spend the money for my HOBBY. I simply will just hit the NEXT key for any messages that will attempt to bait me into any type of nonsense. Yes I
    am no fun but like you and others, I would like to help and keep this HOBBY alive and going. I love to code and most of what I have coded in the past was in the commerical world many years ago. Did a number of projects back in the 90's for Fidonet/BBS before I departed in 2004. I just recently picked up the compiler again and started working on all my old projects that I did not get finished.

    The folks that step up to provide the mail feeds to the rest of us, thank you. For those that try to jump in and help, Thank you. For those that do take on the roles in FidoNet (or other networks), Thank you. For those that want to engage in the non-sense, thats fine and well within your right. I have the power of the NEXT key and of course the DEL key.

    Anyone wants to take issue with the above, sorry, life is way to short, I have lost many friends over the years and this HOBBY will remain that, a HOBBY.

    We do need to have those that are willing to share and help. There are many here that do that. I will simply choose to try and stay out of the battles that are a waste of energy (IMO). If there is a topic I feel strongly about, sure I will step up.

    Thank you


    --- InterEcho 1.20
    * Origin: Home Of InterMail/InterEcho (1:106/201)
  • From Dale Barnes@1:106/201 to ALL on Thursday, November 07, 2019 13:45:55
    Thank you Sean for your feedback and involvement.

    So from a Fidonet standpoint, do we update the standards as to what is still REQUIRED to be in Fidonet from days past or do we start looking at updating the
    documents to reflect what exists today and what we may be looking at moving forward? Do we want to move forward with new ideas knowing this could break systems that exist today?

    But I am always willing to try and help but there are a large number of folks in this ECHO that have been active and around for much longer than I that could
    bring to the table much needed info and feedback.

    db


    --- InterEcho 1.20
    * Origin: Home Of InterMail/InterEcho (1:106/201)
  • From Dan Clough@1:123/115 to Dale Barnes on Thursday, November 07, 2019 14:25:00
    Dale Barnes wrote to Sean Dennis <=-

    Thank you for your feedback but to be clear (not directed to any
    one person), I am keeping this positive. While I have my own
    very personal opinions that I will keep to myself, I am trying to
    enjoy this for what it is....A HOBBY. While I did not write
    InterMail, I cannot take any credit there as InterMail was a
    result of JoHo and Peter. While I own it and have now brought it
    back to life (ie working again) and the new InterMail 3.0 is in
    the works (slow), I do this for FUN, I spend the money for my
    HOBBY. I simply will just hit the NEXT key for any messages that
    will attempt to bait me into any type of nonsense. Yes I am no
    fun but like you and others, I would like to help and keep this
    HOBBY alive and going. I love to code and most of what I have
    coded in the past was in the commerical world many years ago.
    Did a number of projects back in the 90's for Fidonet/BBS before
    I departed in 2004. I just recently picked up the compiler again
    and started working on all my old projects that I did not get
    finished.

    Hello Dale,

    That's a very wise approach (the NEXT key and the HOBBY aspect)...
    On your comments above, I'd be very interested in the status and
    availability of the "old" Intermail/Interecho and the new IM 3.0.
    I purchased/used IM/IE back in the 90's and loved it, and would
    possibly like to use it again... Can you give any details about
    the new 3.0, such as will it be for DOS/Win, perhaps Linux? Will
    it also include a new InterEcho? I've tried to find a web/support
    site over the years but haven't been able to. Do you have a
    public website with more info? Thanks for any info you can
    provide!



    ... ...and we had to chisel taglines into the walls of the cave.
    === MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    --- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
    * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Sean Dennis on Thursday, November 07, 2019 23:51:25
    Unfortunately, Ward and Alexey are examples of people who shouldn't be involved because neither can see beyond the end of their own noses.

    As it is, I am not involved in the FTSC. Never have been, never will.

    And Alexey is totally right mentioning that the FTSC has too much assembled technical incompetence ... he hasn't said so but I wouldn't be surprised if you
    were included in that assessment.

    Just my opinion, of course, but I've been involved long enough to know
    that some members of the FTSC overfluff their pillows in an effort to impress people.

    Like yourself for example by claiming that you are the ZC1 back-up person ?

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)
  • From Dale Barnes@1:106/201 to Dan Clough on Thursday, November 07, 2019 16:41:30
    Dale Barnes wrote to Sean Dennis <=-

    Thank you for your feedback but to be clear (not directed to any
    one person), I am keeping this positive. While I have my own
    very personal opinions that I will keep to myself, I am trying to
    enjoy this for what it is....A HOBBY. While I did not write
    InterMail, I cannot take any credit there as InterMail was a
    result of JoHo and Peter. While I own it and have now brought it
    back to life (ie working again) and the new InterMail 3.0 is in
    the works (slow), I do this for FUN, I spend the money for my
    HOBBY. I simply will just hit the NEXT key for any messages that
    will attempt to bait me into any type of nonsense. Yes I am no
    fun but like you and others, I would like to help and keep this
    HOBBY alive and going. I love to code and most of what I have
    coded in the past was in the commerical world many years ago.
    Did a number of projects back in the 90's for Fidonet/BBS before
    I departed in 2004. I just recently picked up the compiler again
    and started working on all my old projects that I did not get
    finished.

    Hello Dale,

    That's a very wise approach (the NEXT key and the HOBBY
    aspect)...
    On your comments above, I'd be very interested in the
    status and
    availability of the "old" Intermail/Interecho and the new
    IM 3.0.

    I would direct you to the IMECHO or you can send me netmail or email to me at dalebarnes42{at}majik.net as this echo is for FTSC and do not think it is a proper place to go over such topics here.

    Thank you!


    --- InterEcho 1.20
    * Origin: Home Of InterMail/InterEcho (1:106/201)
  • From Dan Clough@1:123/115 to Dale Barnes on Thursday, November 07, 2019 19:46:00
    Dale Barnes wrote to Dan Clough <=-

    On your comments above, I'd be very interested in the status and availability of the "old" Intermail/Interecho and the new IM 3.0.

    I would direct you to the IMECHO or you can send me netmail or
    email to me at dalebarnes42{at}majik.net as this echo is for FTSC
    and do not think it is a proper place to go over such topics
    here.

    Thanks, I'll link up the echomail area. Appreciate it.



    ... If it weren't for Edison we'd be using computers by candlelight
    === MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    --- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
    * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)
  • From Terry Roati@3:640/1321 to Dale Barnes on Friday, November 08, 2019 11:02:58

    On Nov 07, 2019 01:11pm, Dale Barnes wrote to Sean Dennis:

    Anyone wants to take issue with the above, sorry, life is way to short,
    I have lost many friends over the years and this HOBBY will remain
    that, a HOBBY.

    Well said, it's a hobby and I thank you for your effort in supporting us Sysops past and present as an old IM user.

    Terry Roati

    ... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
    --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
    * Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)
  • From Andrew Leary@1:320/219 to Dale Barnes on Thursday, November 07, 2019 12:19:56
    Hello Dale!

    07 Nov 19 08:29, you wrote to all:

    So going to ask this to the group in this ECHO. In regards to the
    FTSC, what would be considered the right kind of person to be a member
    of this group? Someone that is a good technical writer, a developer
    or just someone that understands the history and technology?

    A good technical writer and developer would be a good candidate, although an understanding of the history and technology would also be helpful. For more information, see http://ftsc.org/docs/fta-1000.002 (FTSC Charter) and http://ftsc.org/docs/fta-1001.007 (FTSC Operations.)

    Regards,

    Andrew

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: Phoenix BBS * phoenix.bnbbbs.net (1:320/219)
  • From Dale Barnes@1:106/201 to Andrew Leary on Friday, November 08, 2019 07:40:03
    So going to ask this to the group in this ECHO. In regards to the
    FTSC, what would be considered the right kind of person to be a member
    of this group? Someone that is a good technical writer, a developer
    or just someone that understands the history and technology?

    A good technical writer and developer would be a good
    candidate, although an
    understanding of the history and technology would also be
    helpful. For more
    information, see http://ftsc.org/docs/fta-1000.002 (FTSC
    Charter) and
    http://ftsc.org/docs/fta-1001.007 (FTSC Operations.)


    Thank you Andrew. I read thru the documents so would like to ask this question
    to all. So where do we feel that the Fidonet technology is currently not documented clearly or where we need to focus on?


    --- InterEcho 1.20
    * Origin: Home Of InterMail/InterEcho (1:106/201)
  • From Andrew Leary@1:320/219 to Dale Barnes on Sunday, November 10, 2019 03:10:44
    Hello Dale!

    08 Nov 19 07:40, you wrote to me:

    Thank you Andrew. I read thru the documents so would like to ask this question to all. So where do we feel that the Fidonet technology is currently not documented clearly or where we need to focus on?

    Some of the Binkp changes (Binkp/1.1, ND/NDA mode, etc.) the documentation has never been finished. Several other FSP documents are overdue for review and publication as either standards or reference library documents.

    Andrew


    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: Phoenix BBS * phoenix.bnbbbs.net (1:320/219)
  • From Carol Shenkenberger@1:275/100 to Dale Barnes on Monday, November 11, 2019 19:04:03
    Re: FTSC
    By: Dale Barnes to All on Thu Nov 07 2019 08:29 am

    So going to ask this to the group in this ECHO. In regards to the FTSC, wha would be considered the right kind of person to be a member of this group? Someone that is a good technical writer, a developer or just someone that understands the history and technology?

    I know that I have seen posts in here in the past that someone posted about position but unable to find the message.

    Just asking the question to determine what is considered the correct skills people think this position should require.

    Thank you



    Dale, I think the true answer is a bit of all of the above. I think from observation most of us hit 2 of the 3 and most have some level of all 3 though one of them may not be obvious or may not relate to Fidonet technology very strongly. At least that's my 2 cents worth.

    xxcarol
    --- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
    * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS telnet://shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)
  • From Carol Shenkenberger@1:275/100 to Dale Barnes on Monday, November 11, 2019 19:19:29
    Re: FTSC
    By: Dale Barnes to ALL on Thu Nov 07 2019 01:45 pm

    Thank you Sean for your feedback and involvement.

    So from a Fidonet standpoint, do we update the standards as to what is still REQUIRED to be in Fidonet from days past or do we start looking at updating documents to reflect what exists today and what we may be looking at moving forward? Do we want to move forward with new ideas knowing this could break systems that exist today?

    But I am always willing to try and help but there are a large number of folk in this ECHO that have been active and around for much longer than I that co bring to the table much needed info and feedback.

    db



    No problem Dale. Generally the FTSC backs off on trying to 'force' any upgrades to existing systems. They can and have changed many issues but they were generally in areas that didn't trip existing systems or zonal operations. IE: something in wide use in one zone, when another didn't think it belonged but the technical ability to implement it was also problematic.

    What we do is document what people are doing and provide a place to make new proposals so that others can implement them and see if they grow to a standard.

    xxcarol
    --- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
    * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS telnet://shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)
  • From Dale Barnes@1:106/201 to Carol Shenkenberger on Tuesday, November 12, 2019 07:34:21
    Dale, I think the true answer is a bit of all of the above.
    I think from
    observation most of us hit 2 of the 3 and most have some
    level of all 3 though
    one of them may not be obvious or may not relate to Fidonet
    technology very
    strongly. At least that's my 2 cents worth.


    Agreed and thank you for the 2 cents. :)


    --- InterEcho 1.20
    * Origin: Home Of InterMail/InterEcho (1:106/201)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Dale Barnes on Tuesday, November 12, 2019 15:54:07

    At least that's my 2 cents worth.

    Agreed and thank you for the 2 cents. :)

    Wondering ... as those 2 cents are now worth way less than 50 years ago, does it mean the associated opinion has also devaluated ?

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)
  • From Dale Barnes@1:106/201 to Ward Dossche on Tuesday, November 12, 2019 17:04:06

    At least that's my 2 cents worth.

    Agreed and thank you for the 2 cents. :)

    Wondering ... as those 2 cents are now worth way less than
    50 years ago, does it mean the associated opinion has also
    devaluated ?


    Nope, still just 2 cents. Does not increase or decrease with time. There is a value to every opinion. Some more, some less. Also the value could change based on the the reader/listener.


    --- InterEcho 1.20
    * Origin: Home Of InterMail/InterEcho (1:106/201)
  • From Alexey Vissarionov@2:5020/545 to Sean Dennis on Tuesday, November 19, 2019 05:00:00
    Good ${greeting_time}, Sean!

    07 Nov 2019 11:42:14, you wrote to Dale Barnes:

    I've never seen Ward or Alexey produce any programs or anything else
    that would be useful outside of their positions in the network.

    You are welcome to have a look at:
    http://download.binkd.org
    http://download.golded.org
    http://download.huskyproject.org

    (and optionally compare their IP addresses with my INA record).


    --
    Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin
    gremlin.ru!gremlin; +vii-cmiii-ccxxix-lxxix-xlii

    ... god@universe:~ # cvs up && make world
    --- /bin/vi
    * Origin: http://openwall.com/Owl (2:5020/545)
  • From Alexey Vissarionov@2:5020/545 to Andrew Leary on Tuesday, November 19, 2019 05:05:50
    Good ${greeting_time}, Andrew!

    10 Nov 2019 03:10:44, you wrote to Dale Barnes:

    Thank you Andrew. I read thru the documents so would like to
    ask this question to all. So where do we feel that the Fidonet
    technology is currently not documented clearly or where we need
    to focus on?
    Some of the Binkp changes (Binkp/1.1, ND/NDA mode, etc.) the
    documentation has never been finished.

    Yes - both binkp protocol and its' reference implementation binkd are not-that-really actively, but developed.

    Several other FSP documents are overdue for review and publication
    as either standards or reference library documents.

    We also have several totally new technologies like secure binkp, but... sometimes I really doubt whether they should be published.


    --
    Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin
    gremlin.ru!gremlin; +vii-cmiii-ccxxix-lxxix-xlii

    ... GPG: 8832FE9FA791F7968AC96E4E909DAC45EF3B1FA8 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
    --- /bin/vi
    * Origin: http://openwall.com/Owl (2:5020/545)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Alexey Vissarionov on Monday, November 18, 2019 18:43:06
    Hello Alexey,

    We also have several totally new technologies like secure binkp,
    but... sometimes I really doubt whether they should be published.

    If you have any info regarding secure binkp I would like to look that over. Specifically if you have info around binkd?

    If so please share in the binkd area.

    My own interest is in using that with binkd connecting with other like minded mailers, binkd or others.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Oli@2:280/464.47 to Alexey Vissarionov on Tuesday, November 19, 2019 13:30:35
    We also have several totally new technologies like secure binkp,
    but... sometimes I really doubt whether they should be published.

    Maybe you describe in a few words how secure binkp works. Direct TLS, opportunistic TLS, something completely different?

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: * nigirO (2:280/464.47)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12.73 to Alan Ianson on Friday, November 22, 2019 14:34:08

    On 2019 Nov 18 18:43:06, you wrote to Alexey Vissarionov:

    We also have several totally new technologies like secure binkp,
    but... sometimes I really doubt whether they should be published.

    If you have any info regarding secure binkp I would like to look that
    over.

    binkd and others already have completely encrypted session capabilities... even
    binkit has it ;)

    )\/(ark

    Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set
    them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
    ... Can't people just learn to buy their stuff from a dealer or something?
    ---
    * Origin: (1:3634/12.73)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to mark lewis on Friday, November 22, 2019 12:15:38
    Hello mark,

    binkd and others already have completely encrypted session
    capabilities... even binkit has it ;)

    They do, and both mailers work very well with that encryption. Do mailers that support CRYPT need to negotiate a session and exchange passwords before the session can be encrypted?

    Mystic has the ability to encrypt binkp sessions also (it uses cryptlib) although it hasn't fully matured and needs work.

    I was thinking about this and the posibility of a standard so different mailers
    could use secure binkp. Alexey said something about secure binkp that made me curious.

    Would binkp over TLS (or really, any secure method) be a good thing?

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Oli@2:280/464.47 to Alan Ianson on Friday, November 22, 2019 21:42:45
    binkd and others already have completely encrypted session
    capabilities... even binkit has it ;)

    They do, and both mailers work very well with that encryption. Do
    mailers that support CRYPT need to negotiate a session and exchange passwords before the session can be encrypted?

    Yes, you need a shared session password. It's also not a completely encrypted transmission.

    Mystic has the ability to encrypt binkp sessions also (it uses
    cryptlib) although it hasn't fully matured and needs work.

    AFAIK it uses opportunistic TLS (like STARTTLS). The Internet is moving away from opportunistic encryption (RFC 8314, "Cleartext Considered Obsolete"). Mystics implementation is already a lame duck.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunistic_TLS#Weaknesses_and_mitigations

    I was thinking about this and the posibility of a standard so
    different mailers could use secure binkp. Alexey said something about secure binkp that made me curious.

    Would binkp over TLS (or really, any secure method) be a good thing?

    Why wouldn't it? :)

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: kakistocracy (2:280/464.47)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Oli on Friday, November 22, 2019 13:16:22
    Hello Oli,

    They do, and both mailers work very well with that encryption. Do
    mailers that support CRYPT need to negotiate a session and
    exchange passwords before the session can be encrypted?

    Yes, you need a shared session password. It's also not a completely encrypted transmission.

    This was a good start at the time it was implemeneted.

    Mystic has the ability to encrypt binkp sessions also (it uses
    cryptlib) although it hasn't fully matured and needs work.

    AFAIK it uses opportunistic TLS (like STARTTLS). The Internet is
    moving away from opportunistic encryption (RFC 8314, "Cleartext
    Considered Obsolete"). Mystics implementation is already a lame duck.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunistic_TLS#Weaknesses_and_mitigat ions

    Yes, James said that he used this method as a start because we still need to use the current method when encryption is not supported at both sides of the link. The idea (when it's possible) is to move away from opportunitic TLS.

    Would binkp over TLS (or really, any secure method) be a good
    thing?

    Why wouldn't it? :)

    I can't think of a reason. If we could get something to test we could discover what works, what doesn't, and in time a standard method of doing this could be established.

    Then the FTSC could publish a standard. :)

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Alan Ianson on Friday, November 22, 2019 23:32:44

    Then the FTSC could publish a standard. :)

    I'm just wondering, if\when we're encrypting stuff is this becoming a point of interest for the CIA FBI NSA ?

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Ward Dossche on Friday, November 22, 2019 14:44:48
    Hello Ward,

    Then the FTSC could publish a standard. :)

    I'm just wondering, if\when we're encrypting stuff is this becoming a point of interest for the CIA FBI NSA ?

    I don't think so. TLS encryption is pretty standard today. We've been encrypting stuff for years with the CRYPT option of binkd and mailers that support it.

    The CIA/FBI/NSA will look at you though, depending on your habits.. :)

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Oli@2:280/464.47 to Alan Ianson on Friday, November 22, 2019 22:45:33
    Hi Al,

    They do, and both mailers work very well with that encryption.
    Do mailers that support CRYPT need to negotiate a session and
    exchange passwords before the session can be encrypted?

    Yes, you need a shared session password. It's also not a
    completely encrypted transmission.

    This was a good start at the time it was implemeneted.

    Yes and it's easy to implement.

    AFAIK it uses opportunistic TLS (like STARTTLS).

    Yes, James said that he used this method as a start because we still
    need to use the current method when encryption is not supported at
    both sides of the link. The idea (when it's possible) is to move away
    from opportunitic TLS.

    It sounds like a good idea, but it's not (IMHO). We don't have to repeat the mistakes that others did 20 years ago. There will always be many mailers that don't support TLS, which means it never would be possible to move away from opportunistic encryption (by that logic).

    We can just use another default port for binkps. A _binkps._tcp srv record can point to the TLS port and a nodelist flag with optional hostname and port parameters can indicate TLS capability.

    Would binkp over TLS (or really, any secure method) be a good
    thing?

    Why wouldn't it? :)

    I can't think of a reason. If we could get something to test we could discover what works, what doesn't, and in time a standard method of
    doing this could be established.

    We could test direct TLS with binkp today :)


    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: kakistocracy (2:280/464.47)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Oli on Friday, November 22, 2019 15:30:16
    Hello Oli,

    Yes, James said that he used this method as a start because we
    still need to use the current method when encryption is not
    supported at both sides of the link. The idea (when it's
    possible) is to move away from opportunitic TLS.

    It sounds like a good idea, but it's not (IMHO). We don't have to
    repeat the mistakes that others did 20 years ago. There will always be many mailers that don't support TLS, which means it never would be possible to move away from opportunistic encryption (by that logic).

    We can just use another default port for binkps. A _binkps._tcp srv
    record can point to the TLS port and a nodelist flag with optional hostname and port parameters can indicate TLS capability.

    Yep, agreed. http uses port 80 and https uses port 443. We'll probably want to do that for the same reasons http and https do that.

    Would binkp over TLS (or really, any secure method) be a good
    thing?

    Why wouldn't it? :)

    I can't think of a reason. If we could get something to test we
    could discover what works, what doesn't, and in time a standard
    method of doing this could be established.

    We could test direct TLS with binkp today :)

    We should go ahead and do that if that's the case.

    I have questions though and I think we should move this chatter elsewhere.

    I could suggest the NET_DEV area, sound OK?

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Alexey Vissarionov@2:5020/545 to Alan Ianson on Sunday, November 24, 2019 00:44:44
    Good ${greeting_time}, Alan!

    22 Nov 2019 12:15:38, you wrote to mark lewis:

    I was thinking about this and the posibility of a standard so
    different mailers could use secure binkp.

    JFYI: binkd already has this capability.

    Alexey said something about secure binkp that made me curious.

    Yes. We needed a method for safe and secure peer-to-peer file distribution:
    0. Looking like a completely different protocol.
    1. Immune to DPI (twice a fuck to Roscompozor).
    2. Almost impossible to ban (18446744073709551616 more fucks to Roscompozor). 3. Capable of connection multiplexing on a single host:port pair.

    Would binkp over TLS (or really, any secure method) be a good thing?

    Generally speaking, TLS should be considered insecure being artificially weakened on request from "general sponsor" (guess the TLA with one attempt).

    For now, the OpenSSL still has the almost-safe triade of RSA (1977), SHA-2 (2002) and Blowfish (1993), but... they are _not_ used for TLS as a triade.


    --
    Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin
    gremlin.ru!gremlin; +vii-cmiii-ccxxix-lxxix-xlii

    ... that's why I really dislike fools.
    --- /bin/vi
    * Origin: http://openwall.com/Owl (2:5020/545)
  • From Carol Shenkenberger@1:275/100 to Dale Barnes on Thursday, November 28, 2019 10:07:12
    Re: FTSC
    By: Dale Barnes to Carol Shenkenberger on Tue Nov 12 2019 07:34 am

    Dale, I think the true answer is a bit of all of the above.
    I think from
    observation most of us hit 2 of the 3 and most have some
    level of all 3 though
    one of them may not be obvious or may not relate to Fidonet
    technology very
    strongly. At least that's my 2 cents worth.


    Agreed and thank you for the 2 cents. :)



    Welcome Dale. Going back to some messages, I note I'd indicated some discomfort with the set nodelist and recommended we at least consider 'extenuating circumstances'. While it does not seem to cause any candidates problems, there might be a potential for Z4 RCs to be affected.

    That type of activity falls in the '2 of 3' realm.

    FTA-1001.007 speaks to the members of the FTSC in section 3.2 FTSC Standing Members. The list is not all inclusive but has a critical 'or' placement between developers and coordinators.

    Same document BTW that I think might have formerly listed 'Invited Guests' (aka technical advisors) but had some level of actual rules of behavor. Now, there aren't any 'rules' really. Standing guest members are all sitting ZCs. (presume if ICC was not a sitting ZC, they too would carry over to this).

    xxcarol
    --- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
    * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS telnet://shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)
  • From Dale Barnes@1:106/201 to ALL on Friday, February 12, 2021 11:27:01
    So am I allowed to toss my name in or does someone else have to do it?

    Thank you


    --- InterEcho 1.21
    * Origin: Home Of InterMail/InterEcho (1:106/201)
  • From Richard Menedetter@2:310/31 to Dale Barnes on Sunday, February 14, 2021 21:07:02
    Hi Dale!

    12 Feb 2021 11:27, from Dale Barnes -> ALL:

    So am I allowed to toss my name in or does someone else have to do it?

    Ask your, or any other RC, to nominate you.

    CU, Ricsi

    ... If you try cross-country skiing, start with a small country.
    --- GoldED+/LNX
    * Origin: Never ask a barber whether you need a haircut. (2:310/31)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Dale Barnes on Sunday, February 14, 2021 22:47:09
    So am I allowed to toss my name in or does someone else have to do it?

    You did read the announcement ... right ?

    \%/@rd

    --- DB4 - Dec.21 2020
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Dale Barnes@1:106/201 to Ward Dossche on Sunday, February 14, 2021 18:51:25
    So am I allowed to toss my name in or does someone else have to do it?

    You did read the announcement ... right ?

    You should know the answer to this if I asked the question correct? :P


    --- InterEcho 1.21
    * Origin: Home Of InterMail/InterEcho (1:106/201)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Dale Barnes on Tuesday, February 16, 2021 16:26:13
    So am I allowed to toss my name in or does someone else have to do
    it?

    You did read the announcement ... right ?

    You should know the answer to this if I asked the question correct? :P

    Man, that's a good answer, I like it ... :-)

    \%/@rd

    --- DB4 - Dec.21 2020
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Carol Shenkenberger@1:275/100 to Dale Barnes on Saturday, February 20, 2021 14:13:15
    Re: FTSC
    By: Dale Barnes to Ward Dossche on Sun Feb 14 2021 06:51 pm

    So am I allowed to toss my name in or does someone else have to do it?

    You did read the announcement ... right ?

    You should know the answer to this if I asked the question correct? :P



    Dale, you have to be nominated by an RC.
    xxcarol
    --- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
    * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS telnet://shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)