Two VPN messages arrived from a former University of Colorado colleague just before Christmas.
The first described a free client and server product using 256-bit AES encryption. The second pointed directly to OpenVPN and asked whether I had seen it.
The same run of email included links to security research and a set of Unix tools. These were short messages between systems people. There was no formal evaluation document, purchasing process, or product presentation. Somebody found a tool that might solve a current problem and forwarded the link.
I was working as SimAuthor's network administrator and running Praxis Technology at the same time. VPN access mattered in both settings. SimAuthor needed secure remote paths into a mixed Windows and Linux environment. Consulting clients also needed remote maintenance without exposing administrative services directly to the internet.
The timing followed a practical failure. In late November, I had been in Italy on a network that allowed only web traffic. I could not use the VPN, SSH, remote desktop, or dial-out tools I expected to use. That did not make these December products a direct answer to the Italy problem, because a blocked network could still block them. It did keep secure remote access near the top of the work list.
The archive does not show that I installed the first product. It also does not establish when I first deployed OpenVPN in production. A link in an inbox is evidence of evaluation, not evidence of a technical decision.
What it does show is the way new infrastructure software moved through a small professional network in 2005. A trusted colleague saw free VPN software, checked the encryption, and sent it to the people likely to test it. The recipient could compare it with the current setup and decide whether it was worth a lab build.
I saved both messages. OpenVPN remained useful long after many of the other tools in that inbox disappeared.