On 30 Jan 2013, at 14:45, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net> wrote:
On 1/29/2013 5:57 PM, Rob Jarratt wrote:
A couple of other options are:
1. Never switch off your router so that it keeps its IP address. In my case
(Virgin Media in the UK), my IP address does not change for months at a
time, and just ask Johnny (or whoever you peer to), to restart the bridge
with a new IP.
2. Persuade someone who has a fixed IP to run the user mode router, if you
register your IP with something like DynDns then the user mode router
periodically checks for a change of IP.
3. Use the upcoming SIMH emulation of the DMC11, which allows you to connect
using TCP to someone else who has a fixed IP. Again you would need to
persuade someone who has a static IP to peer with you. But the SIMH
emulation does actually do a fresh DNS lookup if the connection goes down,
so a change of IP would work in any case.
Cory, any progress on the Cisco dynamic IP thing?
Haven't had the time to poke at cisco scripting lately. Been too busy migrating to VMWare. I should have time later tonight. I'll let you know my progress.
-brian
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff!
http://gimme-sympathy.org/ My permanently-a-work-in-progress pet project.
On 1/29/2013 5:57 PM, Rob Jarratt wrote:
A couple of other options are:
1. Never switch off your router so that it keeps its IP address. In my case
(Virgin Media in the UK), my IP address does not change for months at a
time, and just ask Johnny (or whoever you peer to), to restart the bridge
with a new IP.
2. Persuade someone who has a fixed IP to run the user mode router, if you
register your IP with something like DynDns then the user mode router
periodically checks for a change of IP.
3. Use the upcoming SIMH emulation of the DMC11, which allows you to connect
using TCP to someone else who has a fixed IP. Again you would need to
persuade someone who has a static IP to peer with you. But the SIMH
emulation does actually do a fresh DNS lookup if the connection goes down,
so a change of IP would work in any case.
Cory, any progress on the Cisco dynamic IP thing?
-brian
sampsa at mac.com writes:
On 30 Jan 2013, at 16:22, Tim Sneddon <tim at sneddon.id.au> wrote:
X25 and UUCP have been dropped when MX became open source. SITE is
definitely still there. I've seend that used for lots of interesting
stuff. I'm pretty sure it was Ruslan Laishev that developed an SMS >
gateway for MX.
Damn it - we could've interfaced it via UUCP to UUHECNET...
The V4.x MX pachage is still out on the internet with these pieces. It
might be possible to use the older package or use these components from
it.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
Well sort of...there is a UUHecnet and I'm sure if someone get's bored
one weekend there will be a heX.25 network spring up in no time...:-)
Funny you should mention that, we've been talking with some guys about implementing a X.25 network, largely over XOT. Just for amusement value I might put an old nokia cell phone to answer calls to a virtual PAD :)
We were thinking of calling it HECPAC...
On 30 Jan 2013, at 16:22, Tim Sneddon <tim at sneddon.id.au> wrote:
X25 and UUCP have been dropped when MX became open source. SITE is
definitely still there. I've seend that used for lots of interesting
stuff. I'm pretty sure it was Ruslan Laishev that developed an SMS
gateway for MX.
Damn it - we could've interfaced it via UUCP to UUHECNET...
Does it support re-writing the Reply-To: or From: headers?
Not arbitrarily, but it has a special case for SMTP to DECnet.
Sorry, but if you want to know more please email me off list (without
HECnet in the subject). The HECnet list mail gets sent to my junk mail
folder, and I only scan it once a day, if that.
Bob
Tim Sneddon <tim at sneddon.id.au> writes:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 07:27:06 -0800 "Bob Armstrong" <bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in knowing what you are using to back it. > >
Multinet. >
Does it support re-writing the Reply-To: or From: headers?
There's SMTP handling in Multinet but no real mail handling capabilities
like are within MX. When I worked for the DoD, I put Multinet on nearly
all the VMS boxes and then used MX for what it does best, so I know it's
lacking in certain abilities. However, I haven't run Multinet in several
years as Process ceased sending me quid pro quo licenses and updates so,
perhaps, in recent versions there's a more capable email handler.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 07:27:06 -0800
"Bob Armstrong" <bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in knowing what you are using to back it.
Multinet.
Does it support re-writing the Reply-To: or From: headers?
Regards, Tim.
