Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Really neat project, see my sister comment (on analogue pagers still in service).

>I'd love to hear your thoughts on the IP-to-Phone-Number mapping logic (it's purely visual, but I'm really into it).

Personally, this seems like a really bad idea. The similarity to actual phone numbers might lead to confusion by non-technical high-trust contactors. Worse (e.g.) if the IP were 91.1x.x.x then this could lead to further confusion &/or erroneous 9-1-1 misdials (by inept contactors).

It's a UDP packet, ought it not be in IP-format?

>where you only want interruptions from a high-trust circle

I don't even have a phone contact number anymore. After you page me, I'll VoIP you back from an outbound-only.

But overall I LOVE that you have attempted this; only real problem for your average installer/recipient is that most home ISPs are firewalled (so a UDP7777 inbound isn't possible), but this obviously isn't for even your average technical installer.

----

Just leave me alone, world/SPAMmers!

How do you prevent malicious actors from invading your 7777UDPs?



For anti-spam, the general use case is use of Tailscale/Zerotier where you are in control of your network. If you are on public internet and have 7777 open then you can use the Squelch filter under the CFG page. It drops every message that doesn't start with your secret::


> It drops every message that doesn't start with your secret::

Depending on how internet-proof you want to make this, I wonder if it might be better to sign with a secret and attach the signature to the message instead of directly sending the secret.


I considered that! But thought for this “first public” release it might be overkill. Definitely one of the possibilities for later




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: