From Jeff.Hodges at KingsMountain.com Thu Apr 14 12:53:42 2016 From: Jeff.Hodges at KingsMountain.com (=JeffH) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:53:42 -0700 Subject: [ih] RFC 7805 on Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-Related Documents to Historic or Informational Status Message-ID: <570FF546.3080608@KingsMountain.com> of possible historical interest :) Subject: [tcpm] RFC 7805 on Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-Related Documents to Historic or Informational Status From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 17:48:38 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org Cc: drafts-update-ref at iana.org, tcpm at ietf.org, rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7805 Title: Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-Related Documents to Historic or Informational Status Author: A. Zimmermann, W. Eddy, L. Eggert Status: Informational Stream: IETF Date: April 2016 Mailbox: alexander at zimmermann.eu.com, wes at mti-systems.com, lars at netapp.com Pages: 8 Characters: 15754 Obsoletes: RFC 675, RFC 721, RFC 761, RFC 813, RFC 816, RFC 879, RFC 896, RFC 1078, RFC 6013 Updates: RFC 7414 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7805 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17487/RFC7805 This document reclassifies several TCP extensions and TCP-related documents that either have been superseded, have never seen widespread use, or are no longer recommended for use to "Historic" status. The affected documents are RFCs 675, 721, 761, 813, 816, 879, 896, 1078, and 6013. Additionally, this document reclassifies RFCs 700, 794, 814, 817, 872, 889, 964, and 1071 to "Informational" status. This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group of the IETF. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC _______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Tue Apr 26 13:11:32 2016 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:11:32 -0400 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email Message-ID: <571FCB74.1020806@meetinghouse.net> Hi Folks, Maybe a silly question, but.... I remember arriving at MIT in the Fall of 1971, immediately getting an account on the AI lab ITS system, and a month or so later, Ray Tomlinson sent the first ARPANET email. Pretty quickly, a mail program showed up, and within a few months, email was flowing all around the ARPANET. But, I'm wondering about the play-by-play from Ray sending mail between two adjacent machines at BBN, to mail being available on the early batch of Internet hosts. For those running TENEX, I assume they ftp'd Ray's code (or was it some precursor to ftp?). But.... how did people actually find out about the code - after all, there weren't any email lists to announce it on. And, for those not running TENEX - how did folks find out enough details to code up mailers and clients for other machines, and then get the word out? Anybody remember the play-by-play? Thanks, Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From vint at google.com Tue Apr 26 19:28:32 2016 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:28:32 -0400 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: <571FCB74.1020806@meetinghouse.net> References: <571FCB74.1020806@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: dave crocker and john vittal can help here I imagine. v On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Maybe a silly question, but.... > > I remember arriving at MIT in the Fall of 1971, immediately getting an > account on the AI lab ITS system, and a month or so later, Ray Tomlinson > sent the first ARPANET email. > > Pretty quickly, a mail program showed up, and within a few months, email > was flowing all around the ARPANET. > > But, I'm wondering about the play-by-play from Ray sending mail between > two adjacent machines at BBN, to mail being available on the early batch > of Internet hosts. > > For those running TENEX, I assume they ftp'd Ray's code (or was it some > precursor to ftp?). But.... how did people actually find out about the > code - after all, there weren't any email lists to announce it on. > > And, for those not running TENEX - how did folks find out enough details > to code up mailers and clients for other machines, and then get the word > out? > > Anybody remember the play-by-play? > > Thanks, > > Miles Fidelman > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Tue Apr 26 22:32:22 2016 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 01:32:22 -0400 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: References: <571FCB74.1020806@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <57204EE6.70407@meetinghouse.net> Thanks Vint! Actually, since posting, a few BBN folks gave me some additional history (Bob Clements and Ken Pogran in particular). I hadn't realized that the NIC had paper-based mailing lists going for early RFCs and such - that's how the word got out (software by ftp). Miles On 4/26/16 10:28 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > dave crocker and john vittal can help here I imagine. > > v > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Miles Fidelman > > wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > Maybe a silly question, but.... > > I remember arriving at MIT in the Fall of 1971, immediately getting an > account on the AI lab ITS system, and a month or so later, Ray > Tomlinson > sent the first ARPANET email. > > Pretty quickly, a mail program showed up, and within a few months, > email > was flowing all around the ARPANET. > > But, I'm wondering about the play-by-play from Ray sending mail > between > two adjacent machines at BBN, to mail being available on the early > batch > of Internet hosts. > > For those running TENEX, I assume they ftp'd Ray's code (or was it > some > precursor to ftp?). But.... how did people actually find out > about the > code - after all, there weren't any email lists to announce it on. > > And, for those not running TENEX - how did folks find out enough > details > to code up mailers and clients for other machines, and then get > the word > out? > > Anybody remember the play-by-play? > > Thanks, > > Miles Fidelman > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for > assistance. > > > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larrysheldon at cox.net Wed Apr 27 22:43:14 2016 From: larrysheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:43:14 -0500 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: <57204EE6.70407@meetinghouse.net> References: <571FCB74.1020806@meetinghouse.net> <57204EE6.70407@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <078f77c9-9150-487a-5368-40ba18aa1b37@cox.net> On 4/27/2016 00:32, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Actually, since posting, a few BBN folks gave me some additional history > (Bob Clements and Ken Pogran in particular). I hadn't realized that the > NIC had paper-based mailing lists going for early RFCs and such - that's > how the word got out (software by ftp). I have been led to believe that (one of) the earliest forms of "email" consisted of UUCPing (or later, ftping) document files around. I was not there, then. I was off in a world where stuff mostly went by wide-band truck. -- "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." --Albert Einstein From johnl at iecc.com Thu Apr 28 17:47:53 2016 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 29 Apr 2016 00:47:53 -0000 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: <078f77c9-9150-487a-5368-40ba18aa1b37@cox.net> Message-ID: <20160429004753.67084.qmail@ary.lan> >I have been led to believe that (one of) the earliest forms of "email" >consisted of UUCPing (or later, ftping) document files around. > >I was not there, then. I was. There was indeed a lot of uucp mail, but it came out of the unix community in the late 1970s which at the time had only a small overlap with the Arpanet community. All you needed was an ordinary dialup modem, and someone who was willing to talk to you. Many sites buried the toll calls in the company's overall phone bill. Although uucp is older than usenet and netnews, they took off together since the same uucp connection you used for your usenet fix also handled mail. There was a certain amount of informal leakage between Arpanet mail and uucp -- in the mid 1980s you could reach me at ima!johnl at cca. A little googlage will reveal a lot of interesting technology related to uucp, such as Peter Honeyman's uucp mapping project which created a distributed (by uucp) database of uucp sites so we didn't have to know that path to each node, and the Telebit trailblazer modem which had special microcode to fake out the uucp "g" transport layer and take better advantage of phone capacity. R's, John From randy at psg.com Thu Apr 28 18:25:08 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:25:08 +0900 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: <20160429004753.67084.qmail@ary.lan> References: <078f77c9-9150-487a-5368-40ba18aa1b37@cox.net> <20160429004753.67084.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: > I was. There was indeed a lot of uucp mail, but it came out of the > unix community in the late 1970s which at the time had only a small > overlap with the Arpanet community. All you needed was an ordinary > dialup modem, and someone who was willing to talk to you. then you may want to adjust the dates in the history section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP randy, who was also there From larrysheldon at cox.net Fri Apr 29 01:12:57 2016 From: larrysheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 03:12:57 -0500 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: <20160429004753.67084.qmail@ary.lan> References: <20160429004753.67084.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: On 4/28/2016 19:47, John Levine wrote: >> I have been led to believe that (one of) the earliest forms of "email" >> consisted of UUCPing (or later, ftping) document files around. >> >> I was not there, then. > > I was. There was indeed a lot of uucp mail, but it came out of the > unix community in the late 1970s which at the time had only a small > overlap with the Arpanet community. All you needed was an ordinary > dialup modem, and someone who was willing to talk to you. Many sites > buried the toll calls in the company's overall phone bill. Although > uucp is older than usenet and netnews, they took off together since > the same uucp connection you used for your usenet fix also handled > mail. I used UUCP as a denizen of what might have been called (but was not) "social media" in the form of The WELL. > There was a certain amount of informal leakage between Arpanet mail > and uucp -- in the mid 1980s you could reach me at ima!johnl at cca. -- "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." --Albert Einstein From Larry's Cox account. From johnl at iecc.com Fri Apr 29 09:57:56 2016 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 29 Apr 2016 16:57:56 -0000 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20160429165756.70533.qmail@ary.lan> >>> I have been led to believe that (one of) the earliest forms of "email" >>> consisted of UUCPing (or later, ftping) document files around. We should also remember fidonet, which in its day was probably bigger than usenet, and likely carried more mail, too. Same idea, hop by hop dialup, although fido tried a lot harder to organize the toplogy to take advantage of local calling areas. R's, John From faber at lunabase.org Fri Apr 29 10:23:47 2016 From: faber at lunabase.org (Ted Faber) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:23:47 -0700 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: <20160429165756.70533.qmail@ary.lan> References: <20160429165756.70533.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: <572398A3.90703@lunabase.org> On 04/29/2016 09:57 AM, John Levine wrote: >>>> I have been led to believe that (one of) the earliest forms of "email" >>>> consisted of UUCPing (or later, ftping) document files around. > > We should also remember fidonet, which in its day was probably bigger > than usenet, and likely carried more mail, too. Same idea, hop by hop > dialup, although fido tried a lot harder to organize the toplogy to take > advantage of local calling areas. As I'm sure Randy will pipe up and mention, its day ain't quite over: https://www.fidonet.org/ https://www.fidonet.org/inet92_Randy_Bush.txt Yes, there is something joyful in the fact that those are HTTPS links... -- http://www.lunabase.org/~faber http://www.lunabase.org/~faber/blog -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From feinler at earthlink.net Fri Apr 29 12:59:20 2016 From: feinler at earthlink.net (Elizabeth Feinler) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:59:20 -0700 Subject: [ih] Nominations sought: Jonathan B. Postel Service Award 2016 Message-ID: Hi Everyone, Many of you know worthy candidates, so may I urge you to send in a nomination. Regards, Jake Feinler ==================================== Greetings on behalf of the Internet Society, We are pleased to announce that candidate nominations for the 2016 Jonathan B. Postel Service Award are now open. This prestigious annual award is presented to an individual or organization that has made outstanding contributions in service to the data communications community. The signature crystal globe and a USD 20,000 prize will be presented at the 96th Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meeting in Berlin, Germany (17 -22 July 2016) to the chosen candidate. Nominations are encouraged for individuals or teams of individuals from across the data communications industry around the world, either by self-nomination or by third party. Please submit your nominations using this web form and do not hesitate to share this information with your networks: https://www.internetsociety.org/form/postel-nominations The deadline for nominations is 5pm UTC, 18 May 2016. *** More About the Award The Jonathan B. Postel Service Award was established by the Internet Society to honor a person who has made outstanding contributions in service to the data communications community. The award is focused on sustained and substantial technical contributions, service to the community, and leadership. With respect to leadership, the award committee places particular emphasis on candidates who have supported and enabled others in addition to their own specific actions. The award is named for Dr. Jonathan B. Postel to recognize and commemorate the extraordinary stewardship exercised by Jon Postel over the course of a thirty-year career in networking. Jon Postel served as the editor of the RFC series of notes from its inception in 1969 until 1998. He also served as the ARPANET ?numbers Czar? and Internet Assigned Numbers Authority over the same period of time. He was a founding member of the Internet Architecture (nee Activities) Board and the first individual member of the Internet Society, which he also served as a Trustee. Find out more ? Find the out more on the award, nomination procedures, and online submission forms. http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/grants-and-awards/awards/postel-service-award ? Learn more about Jon Postel?s life and contributions. http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/grants-and-awards/awards/postel-service-award/ten-year-tribute-jon-postel ? I'm ready to nominate someone! http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/grants-and-awards/awards/postel-service-award/procedures Best Regards, The Internet Society Team For any questions please contact postel at isoc.org ________________ Elizabeth Feinler feinler at earthlink.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy at psg.com Fri Apr 29 16:02:02 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 08:02:02 +0900 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: <572398A3.90703@lunabase.org> References: <20160429165756.70533.qmail@ary.lan> <572398A3.90703@lunabase.org> Message-ID: > https://www.fidonet.org/inet92_Randy_Bush.txt as isoc seems not to have archived early conference papers (i was looking for one from paul tsuchia on sparse netmasks from '92 or '93) a more formal cite may be Communications of the ACM Volume 36 Issue 8, August 1993, http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=163383&coll=portal&dl=GUIDE&CFID=48775420&CFTOKEN=85794362 i think the basic fodonet standard was about '85, but, speaking of poor archiving, my copy only goes back to v9 in '87, ftp://ftp.psg.com/pub/fidonet/stds/FSC0001-9.txt > Yes, there is something joyful in the fact that those are HTTPS links... i am told most fidonet travels over tcp transport these years. i have had no fidonet links since the latter '90s, but do have both tcp- and pots-based uucp. randy From vint at google.com Fri Apr 29 19:41:34 2016 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 22:41:34 -0400 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: References: <20160429165756.70533.qmail@ary.lan> <572398A3.90703@lunabase.org> Message-ID: didn't paul do something called landmark routing? v On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > https://www.fidonet.org/inet92_Randy_Bush.txt > > as isoc seems not to have archived early conference papers (i was > looking for one from paul tsuchia on sparse netmasks from '92 or '93) a > more formal cite may be Communications of the ACM Volume 36 Issue 8, > August 1993, > > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=163383&coll=portal&dl=GUIDE&CFID=48775420&CFTOKEN=85794362 > > i think the basic fodonet standard was about '85, but, speaking of poor > archiving, my copy only goes back to v9 in '87, > ftp://ftp.psg.com/pub/fidonet/stds/FSC0001-9.txt > > > Yes, there is something joyful in the fact that those are HTTPS links... > > i am told most fidonet travels over tcp transport these years. i have > had no fidonet links since the latter '90s, but do have both tcp- and > pots-based uucp. > > randy > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Fri Apr 29 19:44:57 2016 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 22:44:57 -0400 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: References: <20160429165756.70533.qmail@ary.lan> <572398A3.90703@lunabase.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > as isoc seems not to have archived early conference papers (i was > looking for one from paul tsuchia on sparse netmasks from '92 or '93) > ?At the recent ISOC Board meeting in BA, it was mentioned that - as a precursor to a website and brand revamp - ISOC is spending something like ?$500k on 'curation' - i.e. sorting through 20 years of content. If there's anything that they might be overlooking it might be an idea to put a word in. ?j? -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scott.brim at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 20:19:49 2016 From: scott.brim at gmail.com (Scott Brim) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 23:19:49 -0400 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: References: <20160429165756.70533.qmail@ary.lan> <572398A3.90703@lunabase.org> Message-ID: On Apr 29, 2016 23:13, "Vint Cerf" wrote: > > didn't paul do something called landmark routing? > > v Yes. IIRC it was his thesis. (I have a copy in the office.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy at psg.com Fri Apr 29 20:32:25 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 12:32:25 +0900 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: References: <20160429165756.70533.qmail@ary.lan> <572398A3.90703@lunabase.org> Message-ID: >> i was looking for one from paul tsuchia on sparse netmasks from '92 >> or '93 > didn't paul do something called landmark routing? paul has done, and continues to do, many things. i was after that one, as i was there for the preso and there was an ort i wanted to extract. randy From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Sat Apr 30 05:09:47 2016 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 08:09:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email Message-ID: <20160430120947.97F1A18C10B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Ted Faber > Yes, there is something joyful in the fact that those are HTTPS links... Oh, you don't want to get me started on HTTPS. IMO, it's the latest cretinous-lemming craze in the world of high tech - we _MUST_ hide all our bits in encryption, because otherwise some dastardly, evil government agency will peer at them ... or something like that. Let's all just conveniently ignore the fact that if said government agency/ies _really_ wanted to know what someone was doing online, they'd perhaps infect that machine's bloat-/Swiss-cheese-ware, which passes for contemporary 'best software practices', with a virus that would report every keystroke ... or something like that. Never mind! Everyone turning on mandatory HTTPS on their server, refusing to even deign to talk to you without it, can sleep the oblivious sleep of the morally superior, rigidly secure in the knowledge that they have done their bit in the crucial fight of out time, to protect privacy and human rights. ... Or something like that. Sorry. You pressed one of my hot buttons - one that is connected to several other of my hot buttons. Noel From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Sat Apr 30 06:42:39 2016 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 06:42:39 -0700 Subject: [ih] e2e protections (was: Re: question re. early adoption of email) In-Reply-To: <20160430120947.97F1A18C10B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20160430120947.97F1A18C10B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <5724B64F.5090902@dcrocker.net> On 4/30/2016 5:09 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > Let's all just conveniently ignore the fact that if said government > agency/ies_really_ wanted to know what someone was doing online, they'd > perhaps infect that machine's bloat-/Swiss-cheese-ware, which passes for > contemporary 'best software practices', with a virus that would report every > keystroke ... or something like that. There is a striking lack of community discussion about system design requirements (nevermind usable[*] technical specifications) for meaningful, end-to-end integrity, confidentiality, and authentication. One-hop, link-level encryption is useful against some basic forms of attack, but not against many others that are known to happen. d/ [*] Mass-market usability seems to be the holy grail of security mechanisms. The mantra that usability and security are in opposition is convenient and reasonable, but ultimately unacceptable. The security community mostly seems to think the pushing harder for systems that are known to have poor usability will somehow eventually achieve success. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From faber at lunabase.org Sat Apr 30 08:47:07 2016 From: faber at lunabase.org (Ted Faber) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 08:47:07 -0700 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: <20160430120947.97F1A18C10B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20160430120947.97F1A18C10B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <5724D37B.1090508@lunabase.org> On 04/30/2016 05:09 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Ted Faber > > > Yes, there is something joyful in the fact that those are HTTPS links... > > Oh, you don't want to get me started on HTTPS. Evidently not. We have met, right? You understand that there's no way I was suggesting that applying a third layer encryption protocol linked to an opaque, application-provider controlled key management infrastructure wasn't full of holes that an interested private party could take advantage of without even putting the resources of a nation-state into the discussion? I pretty keenly understand what an https web server gets you and what it doesn't. My joy was based on the fact that the fidonet.org web site is actively enough maintained that it supports protocols that were just a twinkle in protocol designers' eyes when that organization began moving bits wholesale. > Never mind! Everyone turning on mandatory HTTPS on their server, refusing to > even deign to talk to you without it, can sleep the oblivious sleep of the > morally superior, rigidly secure in the knowledge that they have done their > bit in the crucial fight of out time, to protect privacy and human rights. > ... Or something like that. Um, yeah. Sanctimony and technical misunderstandings make a pretty potent brew. All we can do is try to get people to tone down the former and eradicate the latter. That's not exactly a short simple path, either. I try to take some solace in the notion that their often crackpot screeds at least mean that they're thinking about the issues. -- http://www.lunabase.org/~faber http://www.lunabase.org/~faber/blog -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From johnl at iecc.com Sat Apr 30 09:04:24 2016 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 30 Apr 2016 16:04:24 -0000 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: <20160430120947.97F1A18C10B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <20160430160424.5445.qmail@ary.lan> >IMO, it's the latest cretinous-lemming craze in the world of high tech - we >_MUST_ hide all our bits in encryption, because otherwise some dastardly, >evil government agency will peer at them ... or something like that. > >Let's all just conveniently ignore the fact that if said government >agency/ies _really_ wanted to know what someone was doing online, ... There's a difference between a targeted attack on one person and trawling through data. Nobody thinks that link encryption will stop a determined state actor, but it's fairly effective against large scale casual snooping. R's, John From adrian at creative.net.au Sat Apr 30 09:50:54 2016 From: adrian at creative.net.au (Adrian Chadd) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 09:50:54 -0700 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: <20160430160424.5445.qmail@ary.lan> References: <20160430120947.97F1A18C10B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <20160430160424.5445.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: On 30 April 2016 at 09:04, John Levine wrote: >>IMO, it's the latest cretinous-lemming craze in the world of high tech - we >>_MUST_ hide all our bits in encryption, because otherwise some dastardly, >>evil government agency will peer at them ... or something like that. >> >>Let's all just conveniently ignore the fact that if said government >>agency/ies _really_ wanted to know what someone was doing online, ... > > There's a difference between a targeted attack on one person and > trawling through data. Nobody thinks that link encryption will stop a > determined state actor, but it's fairly effective against large scale > casual snooping. And FYI - for at least 15 years various ISPs have been buying off the shelf boxes to do /exactly that/. Some even wrap it up as "market research". (eg, what youtube/netflix streams are people watching? That's apparently valuable information.) -adrian From faber at lunabase.org Sat Apr 30 15:56:11 2016 From: faber at lunabase.org (Ted Faber) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 15:56:11 -0700 Subject: [ih] question re. early adoption of email In-Reply-To: <20160430160424.5445.qmail@ary.lan> References: <20160430160424.5445.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: <5725380B.70709@lunabase.org> On 04/30/2016 09:04 AM, John Levine wrote: > There's a difference between a targeted attack on one person and > trawling through data. Nobody thinks that link encryption will stop a > determined state actor, but it's fairly effective against large scale > casual snooping. As soon as you say "casual" I only have to outrun my fellow camper, not the bear. That's usually pretty easy. -- http://www.lunabase.org/~faber http://www.lunabase.org/~faber/blog -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: