134
poindexter wrote (2020-04-10):

Oli wrote to Al <=-

That would be a catch-22.

"Note: It is inappropriate to use a port number until your
application has been approved for assignment."

from https://www.iana.org/form/ports-services

Sounds like we all need to use 24553 and make this a de facto standard.

But a port number is not enough for a standard (de facto or official). We need a nodelist flag, SRV record, agreement on the TLS versions and how certificates
are verified. Do clients have to support SNI, ESNI, TLSA records, ALPN? Should
the nodelist flag
---
* Origin: (21:3/102)

166

Oli wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

But a port number is not enough for a standard (de facto or official).
We need a nodelist flag, SRV record, agreement on the TLS versions and
how certificates are verified. Do clients have to support SNI, ESNI,
TLSA records, ALPN? Should the nodelist flag

Or, we could use binkps by arrangement, the same way we arrange session passwords with mailers we communicate with on a regular basis.

Baby steps.


... Have you ever asked a question you weren't supposed to ask?
--- MultiMail/XT v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org (21:4/122)

poindexter wrote (2020-04-11):

Oli wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

But a port number is not enough for a standard (de facto or
official). We need a nodelist flag, SRV record, agreement on the
TLS versions and how certificates are verified. Do clients have to
support SNI, ESNI, TLSA records, ALPN? Should the nodelist flag

Or, we could use binkps by arrangement, the same way we arrange session passwords with mailers we communicate with on a regular basis.

For this use case you could use any port number.

The other stuff is much more important, because it has to be supported by the software.

Baby steps.

The first baby steps are done, I'm getting all my mails over TLS (or Tor).

What's next? ;)

---
* Origin: (21:3/102)

poindexter wrote (2020-04-09):

Re: Re: Hub 3
By: Blue White to alterego on Thu Apr 09 2020 04:23 pm

BINKP is alterant.leenooks.net:24555
BINKPS is alterant.leenooks.net:24556

Is there a recommended/"standard" port for binkps?

There is no official standard at all for binkps, but there seemed to be a consensus for binkps on 24553, if binkp is on 24554.

I just enabled binkps on realitycheckBBS on port 24553.

works :)

---
* Origin: (21:3/102)

Re: binkps port (was: Hub 3)
By: Oli to poindexter FORTRAN on Sat Apr 11 2020 10:57 am

But a port number is not enough for a standard (de facto or official). We

need a nodelist flag, SRV record, agreement on the TLS

versions and how certificates
are verified. Do clients have to support SNI, ESNI, TLSA records, ALPN?

Should the nodelist flag support more parameters than host

and port? ...

I think they are probably all valid requirements.

We should just set the standard, since this is a new thing? ie: Lets start with



























































































































































































































































































IBS or SBN flag to indicate BINKPS (I prefer the latter).
...deon


... WARNING! Removal of this tagline prohibited by law!
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (21:2/116)