Re: [VANILLA-LIST:2764] www.netrek.org down for Y2K upgrades

[Tom Holub <doosh@best.com>]

On Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 12:42:44AM -0800, Carlos Y. Villalpando wrote:
> Quoting Tom Holub <doosh@best.com>:
> 
> > We have at least three active INL servers and two active hockey servers,
> > none of which use RSA authentication.
> 
> Oh, ok. I just based it on the metaserver output.
> 
> > If you already have the right MP libraries, 
> 
> Which MP library I thought the configure scripts for the compile took
> care of. And a non-MP version of res-rsa can be built for the server
> side. That is described in the INSTALL readme files in res-rsa and
> Vanilla base directories.  INSTALL.RSA in the Vanilla source tree and
> INSTALL in the res-rsa source tree also tells where to get the Gnu MP
> libraries.
> 
> > and if the version of the
> > RSA utilities you have works with the current vanilla release (which
> > does not seem to be the case with the ones I have),
> 
> Making sure one has the up to date versions of software is not
> particular to res-rsa.

The point is, as a server god I don't want to download a new auxilliary
package.  Almost any other service I want to run, I can just download it,
do ./configure and run it.  In this case the auxilliary package is 
really annoying because it's encrypted and the crypt key keeps changing.

> > and if you
> > can figure out on your own how to generate your first key list (which
> > does not appear to be documented anywhere),
> 
> The INSTALL.RSA file in the Vanilla source tree, last paragraph. (which
> they have to read anyway to figure out where to get the res-rsa
> package).

I am not sure that running updated alone works; I have done that before
and not gotten a valid key list.  That might have been back before
the code was updated to point to the (occasionally) working metaserver.

Speaking of things we really friggin' need to fix; metaserver.netrek.org.

> > maybe it's not too bad.
> > I think for the common cases it's a big pain in the ass.
> 
> I do agree that the fact that one has to go beg for it is rather
> annoying from a new server point of view. That gets no argument from
> me. But there are copyright, patent, and ITAR issues as to why it is
> done that way..

I realize that, but my point is that the clunkiness of the current
system is enough of a barrier that people don't use it.  If a new
system isn't going to be any easier to install and use, it's a waste
of time creating it, because people still won't use it.
 -Tom