g00r00,

I just need to get understanding and what's what with Mystic in terms with a message board setup to be NetMail. What does "export-to" do on NetMail? Is it needed? If there is no defined exports, I notice mutil exports netmail and routes it outbound to the host according to the Nodes routing stuff.

Nick and I are trying to analyze an interesting scenario where I sent Janis Kracht a NetMail, it exported from my system, delivered to his, and then directly from him got sent to Janis's system unsecure.
I have no exports setup in the NetMail message base, and I've always seen it export and deliver to the node that's setup with a matching route detail,
which could be Nick's, could be my NC, and it goes to that host accordingly, accurately from my end to the next hop based on route.

[Psi-Jack -//- Decker's Heaven]

--- Mystic BBS v1.10 A51 (Linux)
* Origin: Decker's Heaven * deckersheaven.com (46:1/142)

I just need to get understanding and what's what with Mystic in terms
with a message board setup to be NetMail. What does "export-to" do on NetMail? Is it needed? If there is no defined exports, I notice mutil exports netmail and routes it outbound to the host according to the
Nodes routing stuff.

Netmail routes based on the routing configuration, just like it does for everything else you could use. You are not exporting netmail to echomail links; they are two separate things.

There was a bug at one point that violated this rule, but I think that was fixed like a year+ ago (hopefully!)? It should all be in the whatsnew.

The only difference I can think of that may be "atypical" in routing is that Mystic will directly route to a node if you directly connect to them, without you needing to implicitly define any route information to them.

Nick and I are trying to analyze an interesting scenario where I sent Janis Kracht a NetMail, it exported from my system, delivered to his,
and then directly from him got sent to Janis's system unsecure.

Okay, so this sounds like exactly what it should do, unless you are
connecting to Janis directly and have routed it to her? Maybe I'm missing something but it sounds like this is right, without knowing more detail.

I have no exports setup in the NetMail message base, and I've always
seen it export and deliver to the node that's setup with a matching
route detail, which could be Nick's, could be my NC, and it goes to that host accordingly, accurately from my end to the next hop based on route.

Right and that seems to be the actions that you described above? What is specifically that you think is wrong?

--- Mystic BBS v1.10 A52 (Windows)
* Origin: Sector 7 [Mystic BBS WHQ] (46:1/127)

On 09/04/14, g00r00 said the following...

Netmail routes based on the routing configuration, just like it does for everything else you could use. You are not exporting netmail to echomail links; they are two separate things.

Exactly what I thought, hence why there's specifically also a NetMail type message base, because it's not echomail, it gets routed according to other areas of the system (for example, EchoMail Nodes, which that label is actually somewhat mis-leading, but I get it.)

There was a bug at one point that violated this rule, but I think that was fixed like a year+ ago (hopefully!)? It should all be in the whatsnew.

The only difference I can think of that may be "atypical" in routing is that Mystic will directly route to a node if you directly connect to
them, without you needing to implicitly define any route information to them.

Well, that definitely simplifies things, but also pretty much normal too. Many mail tossers would do the same thing in that regards.

Nick and I are trying to analyze an interesting scenario where I

sent

Janis Kracht a NetMail, it exported from my system, delivered to

his,

and then directly from him got sent to Janis's system unsecure.

Okay, so this sounds like exactly what it should do, unless you are connecting to Janis directly and have routed it to her? Maybe I'm
missing something but it sounds like this is right, without knowing more detail.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said. He was thinking there's something configured on my end that would cause his system to try to directly deliver
the NetMail to Janis. But... I don't see how. I didn't configure the fidonet node link to do any export type other than normal. Not direct, not crash. Just normal.

In my first look at it all, my system essentially did the right thing. It exported the netmail destined to a foreign address, routed it out via Nick's system, and that's it. Done, simple. It was Nick's system, for some reason, that actually went to directly try to deliver it straight to Janis's binkp, somehow, without having her setup in any way, shape, or form, with a link connection, so it established an unsecure connection.

Right and that seems to be the actions that you described above? What is specifically that you think is wrong?

I don't think there was anything wrong. I just wanted to confirm, for Nick and I, what I already thought to be correct. That NetMail doesn't need to be set
to "export to" anything, as being a NetMail type message base will already be exported, but routed according to the routes setup in EchoMail Nodes, or the direct link for an address that's specifically specified there.

Honestly I think it's just a misconfiguration somewhere on his part. He'd mentioned something about binkd.txt, and if I see this correctly, that basically is a nodelist translated into a binkd include file without any kind of passworded sessions, as-if in order to deliver mail directly to a node listed within it.

Probably something like this:
http://www.filegate.net/ipfn/i-binkd/BINKD.TXT

But, of course, no password. BinkD was just like, "Oh, Here's that node! I can just send it directly there without a session password", and it did. And Janis's system accepted it, but that doesn't get tossed because it's
unsecured. hehe.

[Psi-Jack -//- Decker's Heaven]

--- Mystic BBS v1.10 A51 (Linux)
* Origin: Decker's Heaven * deckersheaven.com (46:1/142)

On 09/04/14, Psi-Jack said the following...

Nick and I are trying to analyze an interesting scenario where I sent Janis Kracht a NetMail, it exported from my system, delivered to his,
and then directly from him got sent to Janis's system unsecure.

netmails from insecure sessions go into the binkd insecure directory if one is configured as such... if janis and nick set up a secure password between their systems, this shouldn't happen again...

--- Mystic BBS v1.10 A51 (Windows)
* Origin: (46:1/132)

On 09/04/14, Psi-Jack said the following...

Honestly I think it's just a misconfiguration somewhere on his part. He'd mentioned something about binkd.txt, and if I see this correctly, that basically is a nodelist translated into a binkd include file without any kind of passworded sessions, as-if in order to deliver mail directly to
a node listed within it.

there's no misconfiguration from what i see... unless one can say that not processing mail in the insecure inbound directory is a misconfiguration... it isn't since the separation of securely and insecurely delivered mail was specifically to stop the injection of undesirable mail into a system's processing and having it be passed on to other systems...

if you weren't around in the '90s, you might not know about the stuff that was being done to create illegitimate echomail posts by combining the headers of fidonet echomail with the message bodies from some FTN pr0n network and injecting those pr0n messages into fidonet...

with this came the possibility of netmail landing in the insecure area and not being processed in a timely manner... some mail tosser software can handle
this to extract and process netmails from the insecure directory while leaving the echomail alone... some tossers and ""all-in-one"" systems cannot... in
some cases it requres an external tool which may or may not yet exist...

--- Mystic BBS v1.10 A51 (Windows)
* Origin: (46:1/132)

Hello Psi-Jack,

On 04 Sep 14 07:53, Psi-Jack wrote to g00r00:

Honestly I think it's just a misconfiguration somewhere on his part.
He'd mentioned something about binkd.txt, and if I see this correctly, that basically is a nodelist translated into a binkd include file
without any kind of passworded sessions, as-if in order to deliver
mail directly to a node listed within it.

You think too fast. :)

I have already mentioned that we fixed a couple bugs in Synchronet last week, and that may have caused bugs elsewhere. There is no misconfiguration on my part, I just have to prove that to the developers in order for them to check into it and do anything about it.

Probably something like this: http://www.filegate.net/ipfn/i-binkd/BINKD.TXT

But, of course, no password. BinkD was just like, "Oh, Here's that
node! I can just send it directly there without a session password",
and it did. And Janis's system accepted it, but that doesn't get
tossed because it's unsecured. hehe.

That has nothing to do with your netmail. But it may have to do with how it polled Janis's system secured (on my end). She said she uses binkd.txt too, but

for some reason it didn't allow a secure session when I polled.

Two different issues, remember?

Regards,
Nick

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910
* Origin: thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (46:1/701)

Hello wkitty42,

On 04 Sep 14 16:49, wkitty42 wrote to Psi-Jack:

netmails from insecure sessions go into the binkd insecure directory
if one is configured as such... if janis and nick set up a secure
password between their systems, this shouldn't happen again...

It shouldn't happen anyways, with the use of binkd.txt, right? We both use it, and we're both listed in there.

Regards,
Nick

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910
* Origin: thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (46:1/701)