Hello Nick,

On 28 May 16 10:54, Nick Andre wrote to All:

 NA> Just catching up on some things... I have not had time to read recent
 NA> posts in detail.

 NA> Can someone please clarify, in one or two sentences, what the apparent
 NA> problem is with passwords and where the supposed bug lines herein?

 NA> Keep in mind - DB's packet code has remained unchanged for many many
 NA> years... for a reason. It works for the vast majority of people.

 NA> Also keep in mind my system - Darkrealms - Exchanges mail with at
 NA> least 50, maybe 60+ downlinks, systems running Mystic, Synchronet,
 NA> BBBS, etc etc...  a multitude of different software. Darkrealms is a
 NA> very popular mail-Hub, and DB powers all of the mail operation. No
 NA> packet utilities, no custom workflows. Darkrealms also constantly
 NA> exchanges mail with a NAB system - Ross Cassell.

 NA> So if someone is having problems receiving mail from a DB system, it
 NA> is not the DB system that is "buggy" nor does it need
custom passwords
 NA> or overrides specified in the BinkD configuration.

 NA> If I am not running ANY custom workarounds for the 60+ some-odd
 NA> downlinks I exchange mail with, it stands to reason nobody else here
 NA> should be either.

 NA> It should not be difficult for ANY system or BBS to accept packet
 NA> passwords.

 NA> Just my two cents?

Please post a message directly in Agoranet's test echo so I can see the
original packet with no other systems in between. If there is no packet
password included in your packet, then we'll have to search elsewhere.
Although if there is, then I can at least provide it to you for proof.

We have not been able to prove there is an apparant problem or bug with DB
yet. There has only been possible speculation in 3 different softwares.

However, it has been proven that some DB systems (if not all?) are sending
a packet password while utilizing the "Session Password" setting
in the Security section of DB. At the very least, that "Session
Password" is being included in the original packet and noticed by the
latest Mystic and Synchronet tossers.

This used to be ignored by sbbsecho due to sbbsecho's code being very old.
Now there's a new version (v3) which doesn't ignore it any more. I'm unsure
as to when Mystic started noticing this but there have been a few additions
of Mystic systems hubbing mail these days, so maybe it went unnoticed while
Mystic's tosser code was still in heavy development (ie: not many wanted to
be major hubs while the code was constantly changing - and now a couple
have started their own networks).

Regards,
Nick

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160322