Hello Oli,
AI>> That's an interesting idea but you'd have to communicate the
AI>> location of that inbound filebox to your tosser somehow.
Ol> It could be like BSO for inbound. You just need a good specification
Ol> for the format. E.g. Node 7:8/9 calls and received files are put into
Ol> inbound/othernet.7.8.9.0/trusted/
Ol> or if there is no session password into
Ol> inbound/othernet.7.8.9.0/unknown/
Ol> No need to specifiy an inbox for every node and point in the mailer's
Ol> config.
I think that's an interesting idea and as Tommi suggested it could be made to
work with environment variables or include files.
I'm happy with my inbound as it is and can't think of any reason to make it
more complicated.
AI>> If we had a reliable/secure session we wouldn't need packet
AI>> passwords or inbound directories randomly placed around the file
AI>> system.
Ol> I still don't understand how that helps. What exactly do you have in
Ol> mind?
I don't actually have anything in mind. I dunno how we got on this topic. :)
Ol> The problem is the interface between mailer and tosser. Everyone with
Ol> a session password can drop anything in my shared "secure" inbound. So
Ol> now we need a packet password, because the information about the
Ol> session is thrown out the window and isn't communicated to the tosser.
Ol> We wouldn't need a packet password, if the tosser did know that the
Ol> packet was delivered in an authenticated session with node 7:8/9.
Isn't that the difference between a secure and unsecure inbound?
It is a shared inbound but it is secure.
Ttyl :-),
Al
--- GoldED+/LNX
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
|
