On 2012-07-11 15:35, Bob Armstrong wrote:
Maybe Bob (or who it was?) can make a short comment on how they configured
things ...
Like I remember :-)
All I can say is that the SMTP to MAIL-11 gateway is built into Multinet
and you have to be running the Multinet SMTP server as a prerequisite. ISTR
that I used the decnet.org domain for this, so inbound addresses were of the
form "user at node.decnet.org" where "node" was the HECnet node name. Outbound
MAIL-11 addresses look like LEGATO::SMTP%"user at somewhere.com".
It wasn't that hard to get it working - the biggest problem I remember was
getting the address rewriting rules correct so that mail was symmetrical
(i.e. somebody on the Internet could reply to a message that originated on
HECnet without needing to fix the reply-to address).
I'd set it up again if there was an application for it, but it was never
really used before. I let it run a year or two and then quit maintaining it
when I upgraded Multinet.
I used it a few times and enjoyed it. I know a couple of people who used it a bit more...
If it was a rather small effort to get up and keep up, I would be happy to see it return. But I don't expect anyone to put lots of work or money into it.
Johnny
Maybe Bob (or who it was?) can make a short comment on how they configured
things ...
Like I remember :-)
All I can say is that the SMTP to MAIL-11 gateway is built into Multinet
and you have to be running the Multinet SMTP server as a prerequisite. ISTR
that I used the decnet.org domain for this, so inbound addresses were of the
form "user at node.decnet.org" where "node" was the HECnet node name. Outbound
MAIL-11 addresses look like LEGATO::SMTP%"user at somewhere.com".
It wasn't that hard to get it working - the biggest problem I remember was
getting the address rewriting rules correct so that mail was symmetrical
(i.e. somebody on the Internet could reply to a message that originated on
HECnet without needing to fix the reply-to address).
I'd set it up again if there was an application for it, but it was never
really used before. I let it run a year or two and then quit maintaining it
when I upgraded Multinet.
Bob
On 17 June 2012 16:37, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
I've cleaned out a few entries in my bridge config. They were non-active
entries, but in case someone have been off for a while, and now tries and it
don't work, check with me if I commented you out. I'll happily reenable you,
I just want to keep the list down a little bit...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Hi,
I know i've been on and off hecnet over the last few years. But I have
finally moved into a place big enough to have multiple machines
running and today I got broadband installed with a fixed ip. Can you
update my ip address to be 78.86.112.81.
Thanks
Dan
On 2012-07-11 11:47, Peter Coghlan wrote:
I'd be interested on the node TARDIS.
Also, if someone is going to do a website for hecnet, i'd be up for
www.tardis.hecnet.org (or whatever the domain is).
Hi Tony,
I've added TARDIS to my PMDF configuration and set up an MX record for
tardis.hecnet.beyondthepale.ie as well.
Please try mailing <username>@tardis.hecnet.beyondthepale.ie and see if it
works.
If Steve or Bob can arrange an MX record for a more suitable
something.hecnet.org or something.decnet.org domain to point to my mail server,
I can route mail for that domain to TARDIS too. I just used
tardis.hecnet.beyondthepale.ie to start with as I have control over that
domain.
Maybe Bob (or who it was?) can make a short comment on how they configured things to gate email to/from *all* of hecnet?
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
I'd be interested on the node TARDIS.
Also, if someone is going to do a website for hecnet, i'd be up for
www.tardis.hecnet.org (or whatever the domain is).
Hi Tony,
I've added TARDIS to my PMDF configuration and set up an MX record for
tardis.hecnet.beyondthepale.ie as well.
Please try mailing <username>@tardis.hecnet.beyondthepale.ie and see if it
works.
If Steve or Bob can arrange an MX record for a more suitable
something.hecnet.org or something.decnet.org domain to point to my mail server,
I can route mail for that domain to TARDIS too. I just used
tardis.hecnet.beyondthepale.ie to start with as I have control over that
domain.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
Since we are talking about mail, I thought I'd use this opportunity to plug UUHECNET, basically UUCP based email and stuff for retro computers that can't do SMTP.
Check out http://www.uuhec.net/
Sampsa
I'd be interested on the node TARDIS.
Also, if someone is going to do a website for hecnet, i'd be up for www.tardis.hecnet.org (or whatever the domain is).
Tony.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Peter Coghlan <HECNET at beyondthepale.ie> wrote:
If anyone is interested in playing with receiving internet mail via MAIL-11,
despite the lack of exotic headers, let me know and I will add in rules for
the node(s) involved. Outgoing mails to the internet also work (from a VMS
node at least - I haven't tested with any other OSes). PMDF formats the
MAIL-11 From: header so that replying to incoming messages is straightforward.
Composing new outgoing messages is little more fiddly but it does work.
On Jul 10, 2012, at 8:47 PM, Peter Coghlan wrote:
On the contrary. Some of us nerds will be doing a "View Headers" on every
message just to see the circuitous route it took :)
Given this prospect, I thought I'd better set up a MAIL-11 channel in my PMDF
configuration and do some tests to see what the headers look like. While all
the expected rfc822 headers are there on an incoming message, MAIL-11 does
it's bit silently and secretly, leaving little trace of it's leg of the
journey. So, there's not very much there for header-nerds.
If anyone is interested in playing with receiving internet mail via MAIL-11,
despite the lack of exotic headers, let me know and I will add in rules for
the node(s) involved. Outgoing mails to the internet also work (from a VMS
node at least - I haven't tested with any other OSes). PMDF formats the
MAIL-11 From: header so that replying to incoming messages is straightforward.
Composing new outgoing messages is little more fiddly but it does work.
Mail-11 is very simple compared to Internet mail. It's not store and forward. Instead, when you ask it to send mail to foo::user, it connects -- right then and there -- to the mail listener at foo:: and asks it if "user" is there. If yes, it sends the message across, closes the connection, and it's done.
paul
On the contrary. Some of us nerds will be doing a "View Headers" on every
message just to see the circuitous route it took :)
Given this prospect, I thought I'd better set up a MAIL-11 channel in my PMDF
configuration and do some tests to see what the headers look like. While all
the expected rfc822 headers are there on an incoming message, MAIL-11 does
it's bit silently and secretly, leaving little trace of it's leg of the
journey. So, there's not very much there for header-nerds.
If anyone is interested in playing with receiving internet mail via MAIL-11,
despite the lack of exotic headers, let me know and I will add in rules for
the node(s) involved. Outgoing mails to the internet also work (from a VMS
node at least - I haven't tested with any other OSes). PMDF formats the
MAIL-11 From: header so that replying to incoming messages is straightforward.
Composing new outgoing messages is little more fiddly but it does work.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
On 10.7.2012 23:39, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 07/10/2012 04:37 PM, Kari Uusim ki wrote:
Well, there used to be big plans about X.400 to become the global
standard of messaging...
*shudder*
:)
I understand you feeling; X.400 is complicated compared to SMTP. But that's partly because even the definition describes the point: _Simple_ Mail Transfer Protocol.
If you think of the situation in the 80's when X.400 was planned and there were no standard way of transferring messages between different vendor systems. It was at least an effort to create a standard. I know it's not the best one, but probably more thoroughly planned than SMTP.
Kari
