CDR: Re: FidoNet II

[Tom Vogt]

Tim May wrote:
> First, if you're going to attempt a "FidoNet II," at least use link
> encryption at every stage. 

that goes without saying, doesn't it?


> Second, so long as one has done the above, might as well make each
> node an actual remailer. With all of the usual mixing of in/out
> packets, packet size padding, etc.

good one. yes, should be done that way.



> Third, the use of radio links has come up several times over the
> years. A couple of early Cypherpunks were involved in packet radio
> and addressed the issue. By the way, the FCC still has restrictions
> on encrption over the airwaves, as I understand things.

I was thinking more in the direction of wireless LAN.


> Fourth, given the speeds of the Net, given the move to put phone
> calls over the Net, given the many tools...why on earth would anyone
> want to revive FidoNet? Implement remailer protocols to do a virtual
> FidoNet, perhaps, but don't actually have machines phoning up other
> machines!

course not! see my earlier mails - the internet is available as a
transport layer, so let's use it.



> Look to remailer networks and I think you'll find what you're looking for.

maybe the existing remailer structure could even be utilized. all one
has to do is a simple "email2file" translation. say
"filename at mynode.com".