Just asking the question to determine what is considered the correct skills the people think this position should require.
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.
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.
Unfortunately, Ward and Alexey are examples of people who shouldn't be involved because neither can see beyond the end of their own noses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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
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.
At least that's my 2 cents worth.
Agreed and thank you for the 2 cents. :)
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 ?
I've never seen Ward or Alexey produce any programs or anything else
that would be useful outside of their positions in the network.
Thank you Andrew. I read thru the documents so would like toSome of the Binkp changes (Binkp/1.1, ND/NDA mode, etc.) the
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?
documentation has never been finished.
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.
We also have several totally new technologies like secure binkp,
but... sometimes I really doubt whether they should be published.
over.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
binkd and others already have completely encrypted session
capabilities... even binkit has it ;)
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?
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_mitigat ions
Would binkp over TLS (or really, any secure method) be a good
thing?
Why wouldn't it? :)
Then the FTSC could publish a standard. :)
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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?
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. :)
So am I allowed to toss my name in or does someone else have to do it?
So am I allowed to toss my name in or does someone else have to do it?
So am I allowed to toss my name in or does someone else have to do it?
You did read the announcement ... right ?
it?So am I allowed to toss my name in or does someone else have to do
You did read the announcement ... right ?
You should know the answer to this if I asked the question correct? :P
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
| Sysop: | Weed Hopper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Clearwater, FL |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 230:30:59 |
| Calls: | 55 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 50,127 |
| D/L today: |
26 files (3,281K bytes) |
| Messages: | 275,349 |