Text 26472, 110 rader
Skriven 2015-08-04 15:15:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Matt Bedynek (1:19/10)
Ärende: Routing 200MB of echomail via an unsuspecting system
============================================================
Hello Matt,

On Thursday July 30 2015 08:20, you wrote to me:

 MV>> I am not sure squishmail still qualifies as comtemporary...

 MB> If you can demonstrate how it is inadequate in today's fidonet then I
 MB> will accept this statement.

I didn't say it is inadequate, I said I am not sure about it. Many software in
use in Fidonet today is closed source abandonware and that I do notconsider
adequate.

 MV>> Of course if you recreate an environment from the past, what
 MV>> worked in the past will still work in that environment.

 MB> If you were familiar with squish and reviewed my "lab" configuration
 MB> would understand that the scenario I tested for could happen in the
 MB> real world easily.

I am not familiar with saquish, it was never popular in theis part of the
world, but I do know about echomail distribution and the PKT format. Yes, I can
see that it COULD happen when certain conditions are met. I have already
acknowleged that.

 MV>> If it behaves that way by default I say it is a design flaw.
 MV>> Routing echomail is an anomaly. The normal way to send echomail
 MV>> via a go between is not to route it as if it were netmail, but to
 MV>> have it forwarded by a tosser at the node of the go between.

 MB> I agree it is an anomaly.  To be clear, I use the term 'routed
 MB> echomail' to describe a type of traffic. No one ever made pretentions
 MB> that it was a legitimate function or form of traffic.

OK...

 MB> I still believe the author assumed there might be a future use case so
 MB> permiitted the behavior.

We can speculate, but that would be just that: speculation. All I can say is
that enabling such a "feature" by default is plainly wrong.

 MB> Bjorn as an accomplished FTN programmer with access to the source code
 MB> claimed he could fix any anomaly discovered.  He further stated stated
 MB> that his system runs squish but is not succeptilble to the behavior.
 MB> I believe him.

I am not in the believing bussines and I never accept things as fact just
because someone says so. Not even if it is Björn making the claim. I
expectBjörn to wholeheartedly support this POV.

 MB> There is no reason for people to be petty about observations.  If he
 MB> has made a fix to the code he should release it so that those who also
 MB> run the software can benefit.

Yes, that woukd be nice. If...

 MV>> I can see no reason why on earth one would use routing for
 MV>> echomail.

 MB> I saw not one claim it was legitimate use of the technology.

Indeed, YOU did not.

I have taken a closer look at Fmail and to my surprise I see that it too has a
"feature" that is related. It can fileroute compressed mail packets in AMA
mode. In this cae it was done rightm in that it is diabled by default, the user
must explicitly enable it and it only works for compressed mail packet, not for
raw packet. The fact that it is there however means that the author must have
had the idea that it might be of use under some circumstances...

So it would appear that the author of squismail is not the only one...

 MV>> OTOH, if the test succeeds, that would prove beyond any shadow of
 MV>> doubt that it IS possible.

 MB> I disagree.  We both know that each system can be configured uniquely.
 MB> Such a test would contain too many variables and require a /lot/ of
 MB> cooperation.

It would require no cooperation at all. Just route some echomail though my
system and if the aatempt succeeds it proves that it is possible. No, it does
not prove that it is possible with other systems. But it proves that it is
possible in at least one case.

 MB>    Much like trying to find out whether the NAB or Fidoweb
 MB> lost the message I raised issue over in FIDO_SYSOP.

That is a different kettle of fish.

 MB> A proper way to conduct regression would be to create a controlled
 MB> environment and test each commonly used mail tosser with a minimal
 MB> common configuration individually.   All supplemental processing tools
 MB> (packet sorters, nobogus[if people still use it], and netmail
 MB> trackers) should be disabled.  You want to evaluate whether the
 MB> software is succeptable not the system.

That is a mission impossible. There is just too much stuff around.

 MB> Unfortunately, my concerns in that regard are a little selfish as I do
 MB> not have time to test every piece of software used.

Same here. It is too much. I dont even know all the software that was ever
used.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20130111
 * Origin: Rheb genfu cnpvsvfg cvt fuvg chffl (2:280/5555)