Subj : Netmail in the insecure inbound
To   : Alan Ianson
From : Kai Richter
Date : Sat Apr 24 2021 09:46:10

Hello Alan!

23 Apr 21, Alan Ianson wrote to All:

 AI> I received netmail in my insecure inbound addressed to Ping. This
 AI> netmail arrived in an arcmail bundle and it was not unpacked, it was
 AI> renamed to .sec and left in the insecure inbound for me to unpack and
 AI> toss.

That is the designed process and correct.

 AI> It is normal to receive netmail in the insecure inbound.

Yes, because it's the only way to establish a first contact with the sysop.
At this point the netmail is still not tossed and stored in the insec inbound.

 AI> I wonder if it is possible for hpt to unpack those arcmail bundles
 AI> and toss the packets within if they are netmail.

Yes, it is. Negotiate a password with the sending sysop.

 AI> Echomail should not be tossed from the insecure inbound, but netmail
 AI> in the insecure inbound should?

It's a compromise between security and easy network operation. A not so golden but middle path.

Insecure bundles/archives should not be unpacked because of a mailbomb risk. I do know we are not in the POTS age anymore but i'd like to keep that behavior because of the variety of systems in the network.

Unsecured echomail bundles are a configuration error in most cases. Sending echomail bundles without negotating with the sysop first is annoying behavior if it's "wanted" echomail and xab if it's any form of spam.

In any case there is need to talk to the sending sysop.

And that is why i do dislike the existence of PING. It's results are mostly useless. A PING result would tell me that mailer, tosser and PING bot are up and running - but for any other problems i do need a contact with the sysop. I need a human being on the other side or we are generating a network of lonley PING bots.

Regards

Kai

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7
 * Origin:  Monobox  (2:240/77)

.