Grant,

>> Well, feel free to come up with a(ny) solution that /doesn't/ have any
>> "vector for attack".   Go on, try it.
>
> Nope.  I don't think that's possible.  There will /always/ be something.

What are you doing !?   You're spoiling my game !   :-)

> Seeing as how we're talking about networking and not the science of
> rockets, no, it's not rocket-science.

:-p

> That being said, what you have described there is decidedly different than
> what has been discussed in this thread.

Yeah, and thats part of the problem.   Its not the first time I notice that
people often, without as much as a thought, going for 10-pound solutions to
hammer a quarter-of-an-inch problem in.   It might work, but don't look at
the side effects.

> Interacting with TCP connections without using an existing TCP/IP stack
> *is* quite /complex/.  Is it possible, yes.  Is it reasonable, I don't
> think so.

It was always my full intention to use the RPi's full TCP/IP capablilities,
with me just requesting or writing data (and the socket taking care of the
rest).   I just wanted to make sure that the datastreams from the two
networks would stay seperate.

> Now I feel the need to ask:  What does "post office" mean to you?

Well...  Long ago people wrote messages on /paper/, put them in an also
paper "envelope" and ....  No, really! :-)

But seriously, in this context I tried to indicate a place where one host
could drop a message, and the other could retrieve it - without them ever
needing to meet.    I just didn't want to be more specific than that -
simply because I had no idea what could/would already be available.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05