Subj : Re: NetMail in Mystic
To   : G00R00
From : PSI-JACK
Date : Thu Jan 31 2019 07:20 pm

On 09/04/14, g00r00 said the following...
 
 g0> Netmail routes based on the routing configuration, just like it does for
 g0> everything else you could use.  You are not exporting netmail to echomail
 g0> 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.)

 g0> There was a bug at one point that violated this rule, but I think that 
 g0> was fixed like a year+ ago (hopefully!)?  It should all be in the 
 g0> whatsnew.
 g0> 
 g0> The only difference I can think of that may be "atypical" in routing is
 g0> that Mystic will directly route to a node if you directly connect to
 g0> them, without you needing to implicitly define any route information to
 g0> them.

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

 g0>  Ps> Nick and I are trying to analyze an interesting scenario where I sent
 g0>  Ps> Janis Kracht a NetMail, it exported from my system, delivered to his,
 g0>  Ps> and then directly from him got sent to Janis's system unsecure. 
 g0> 
 g0> Okay, so this sounds like exactly what it should do, unless you are
 g0> connecting to Janis directly and have routed it to her?  Maybe I'm
 g0> missing something but it sounds like this is right, without knowing more
 g0> 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.

 g0> Right and that seems to be the actions that you described above?  What is
 g0> 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)
 þ Synchronet þ thePharcyde_ >> telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)

.