Where communities thrive

Join over 1.5M+ people
Join over 100K+ communities
Free without limits
Create your own community

Explore more communities

bitmaelum/community

Privacy is yours again

People

Repo info

Activity

May 12 12:19

jaytaph on copyright-year-update

(compare)
May 12 12:19

jaytaph on main

Updated copyright year Merge pull request #211 from bi… (compare)
May 12 12:19

jaytaph closed #211
May 12 12:12

coveralls commented #211
May 12 12:12

coveralls commented #211
May 12 12:09

jaytaph closed #209
May 12 12:09

jaytaph commented #209
May 12 12:09

sonarcloud[bot] commented #211
May 12 12:08

jaytaph opened #211
May 12 12:08

jaytaph on copyright-year-update

Updated copyright year (compare)
May 12 12:06

jaytaph on main

(compare)
May 12 12:00

jaytaph on ci-flow

(compare)
May 12 12:00

jaytaph on develop

Fixing to a specific addlicense… documenting 1.17 requirement Merge pull request #210 from bi… (compare)
May 12 12:00

jaytaph closed #210
May 08 09:16

jaytaph edited #210
May 08 09:15

sonarcloud[bot] commented #210
May 08 09:15

sonarcloud[bot] commented #210
May 08 09:15

jaytaph closed #208
May 08 09:15

jaytaph synchronize #210
May 08 09:15

jaytaph on ci-flow

documenting 1.17 requirement (compare)

Joshua Thijssen

@jaytaph

hang on..

i have 2 messages in my inbox

:-)

happy days!

Joshua Thijssen

@jaytaph

message send back...

acalatrava

@acalatrava

🎉

``` root@dev:~/projects/bitmaelum-suite/release# ./bm-client read

| () | | \/ | | |
| |) || || \ / | __ | |
| <| | | |\/| |/ ` |/ \ | | | | ' ` \
| |) | | || | | | (| | __/ | || | | | | | |
|_/||\|| ||_,|_|_|\,|| || ||

P r i v a c y i s y o u r s a g a i n

Please enter your vault password:
FATA[0001] invalid character 'p' after top-level value

I can see there is a message when issuing a fetch-messages command

acalatrava

@acalatrava

root@dev:~/projects/bitmaelum-suite/release# ./readmail -p aaa -a antoniocalatrava!

| () | | \/ | | |
| |) || || \ / | __ | |
| <| | | |\/| |/ ` |/ \ | | | | ' ` \
| |) | | || | | | (| | __/ | || | | | | | |
|_/||\|| ||_,|_|_|\,|| || ||

P r i v a c y i s y o u r s a g a i n

Reading message for user Antonio Calatrava (antoniocalatrava!) (c30ec1b200e45b413d118f66a0f3591a883f2b9cc3e95a497e7cf9da1071b4cc)
panic: open /header.json: no such file or directory
goroutine 1 [running]:
main.main()
/root/projects/bitmaelum-suite/tools/readmail/main.go:56 +0xf65

Joshua Thijssen

@jaytaph

don't use readmail

i think you need to use ./bm-client

but you must check the message through "fetch"

bm-client fetch -a 'antoniocalatrava!' -b 1

that will display all message from box 1

and then you get the uuid for the message

and then you can read with bm-client read -b 1 -m <uuid>

Joshua Thijssen

@jaytaph

i think readmail is an old tool to read encrypted mails locally...

Joshua Thijssen

@jaytaph

Q: i have an issue with organisations. I want to threat them a bit as regular addresses, but this has consequences in for instance the vault... One way to deal with this is that when you want to create an organisation acme-inc, you actually registering the address bitmaelum@acme-inc!, which means that everytime we want to seek an organisation contact, we use this address. This works, but the consequence is that we might get into some issues when you actually want to use the bitmaelum@ address as an actual account.. plus, we always know that this address is valid, making it a target...

maybe we should let the user decide... for now, it only has consequences for the vault

Joshua Thijssen

@jaytaph

hmm.. the resolve function to the keyserver doesn't like this neither.. it needs either a foo! or foo@bar!

but i cannot function with just @bar!

Joshua Thijssen

@jaytaph

nope.. keyserver is not budging... :/

Joshua Thijssen

@jaytaph

i'll use bitmaelum@<org>! for now as the organisation address.. this will work for now... Now I have to see if I can implement the thing we discussed earlier

acalatrava

@acalatrava

Finally!
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore—
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
"'Tis some visiter," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door—
Only this and nothing more."

I think organizations should be treated like regular address

Since is the client the one who will register the organization address, then is the client who can modify the routing address too

acalatrava

@acalatrava

Why do you think about this:
John! and john@acme! Should be treated the same (same hash function) however the organization may sign your account+routing address and provide it to you so you can register with it. The keyserver will not verify this signature, it will just store it and make it available to ask for it

Then, a client who receive a mail from john@acme! Will ask the keyserver and verify the signature. If the signature is not there or is not correct then it will flag the message as “unsafe” or something like that so the client will know that despite the address looks like comes from an organization, it actually won’t

It’s easier to implement (no work for the keyserver) and easier to create and maintain organization addresses

What do you think?

BTW we should move out from Gitter. It sucks XD

acalatrava

@acalatrava

In fact this way a regular email like John! may belong to an organization if the organization signed it

BTW now that I re-read the email I sent you it sounds like I’m proposing lol

Joshua Thijssen

@jaytaph

yeah..

but i don't know what else.. problem is that i really like the history at the moment for finding solutions to problems..

so... if I have "john!", then "john@acme" and "john@wick!", and "john@bonjovi!" should be the same users?

i would see organisations as a namespace, more or less.. where no namespace is the default namespace...

acalatrava

@acalatrava

No, each address is different. Forget the @ at the address name and generate a hash for the whole string.

Joshua Thijssen

@jaytaph

not sure what you mean

acalatrava

@acalatrava

Why having organization at the address is useful?

Joshua Thijssen

@jaytaph

to differentiate between different john's..

acalatrava

@acalatrava

It will be different

Sha256(“John”) != sha256(“john@acme”)

Joshua Thijssen

@jaytaph

yes.. but that has the organisation in it? so i'm not sure what you are saying?

acalatrava

@acalatrava

Cryptographically the keyserver will guarantee that john@acme belongs to acme

Joshua Thijssen

@jaytaph

yes. acme will generate an invitation code that the keyserver can/must verify

that can only come from the organisation itself