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.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:48:04 -0800
"Bob Armstrong" <bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
So MX can do the subdomain -> decnet node name conversion?
You guys know that there's already an SMTP <-> HECnet/MAIL11
gateway, right? There has been for years..
Nope...I had no idea.
(If there was an archive for this group, we wouldn't keep
re-inventing the same thing!).
Yeah, re-inventing the wheel sucks. I'd be interested in knowing what
you are using to back it.
Regards, Tim.
>So MX can do the subdomain -> decnet node name conversion?
You guys know that there s already an SMTP <-> HECnet/MAIL11 gateway, right? There has been for years .
(If there was an archive for this group, we wouldn t keep re-inventing the same thing!).
Here s my description of it from a couple of years back .
Bob
-------
I ve set up an Internet SMTP to HECnet MAIL11 gateway. To send mail from the Internet to a HECnet node, address it to
user at node.decnet.org
where user is the VMS (or RSX or RSTS or whatever) user name and node is the HECnet node name. If you re logged into a HECnet machine you can send Internet mail by addressing it to
LEGATO::SMTP%user at whereever.com
Note that LEGATO will store mail sent in either direction for up two days if the target node is down at the time that means your HECnet machine doesn t have to be online 24x7 in order to receive mail.
IMPORTANT - There is absolutely no SPAM filtering, so please be very careful about where or how you publish these addresses unless you want your VMS mailbox filled up with thousands of SPAMs
Bob
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Tim Sneddon wrote:
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...:-)
[dibs on the name if that actually takes off...]
I'd love to find some equipment and figure out a way to get X.25 working. I know Sampsa has mentioned interest too...
I'm going to have a lot of time available on Saturday where I'm going to be surfing the net (being held hostage for a few hours by my mechanic) so I may do some digging on eBay and other sources.
Would bring me quite a bit of nostalgia from my Telenet/Sprintnet days. :)
Regarding the mail gateway, it was rather easy to set up, and having postfix in front of it allows you to restrict/open up destinations (nodes) as you please.
Fred
----
Lets call it for what it is - "legacy" is a term that people use in a
polite but derogatory manner to imply that the future direction they
prefer is not that which they view as the current direction.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:31:44 -0500
"Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-" <system at TMESIS.COM> wrote:
Tim Sneddon <tim at sneddon.id.au> writes:
Well, in the age of ubiquitous internet, there's probably little need
for either X25 and UUCP agents.
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...:-)
[dibs on the name if that actually takes off...]
You've yanked out the MX licensing now that it's open-source?
Yup, that's gone. MX is now covered under an MIT-style open source
license.
Tim.
Tim Sneddon <tim at sneddon.id.au> writes:
but you might even be able to use: > > _MCP>
"<""{host}::{user}""@localhost>" > > ...but this might hork up replies.
For more elaborate schemes, MX is > capable of rewriting using *IX-style
regular expressions with /REGEX > on the 'DEFINE REWRITE_RULE' command.
Spot on.
;)
For the reverse (outgoing and replies), configure the DN_SMTP server
which is SMTP over DECnet. >
This is a part of MX that I don't know nearly as well as I should, but I
though you needed MX at both ends to make that work. Which would rule
out RSTS and RSX hosts.
They could forward to a VMS host or implement their own SMTP transport.
I use MX% and 'TCP/IP Services' SMTP% transport. If you define logicals
correctly, they can both coexist in harmony. Both 'TCPIP Services' POP
and IMAP require that the MAIL$INTERNET_TRANSPORT logical be defined as
SMTP and that the MX_PROTOCOL_PREFIX logical be defined as SMTP%.
MX has alias translation, mailing list features and other delivery >
agents such as X25, UUCP and a SITE interface. The latter allows a
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.
Well, in the age of ubiquitous internet, there's probably little need
for either X25 and UUCP agents.
You've yanked out the MX licensing now that it's open-source?
--
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 09:20:43 -0500
"Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-" <system at TMESIS.COM> wrote:
Tim Sneddon <tim at sneddon.id.au> writes:
I have used MX at sites that receive quite a decent amount of mail
and have been quite impressed with the performance. Although, I'm
biased...
Yup! But it often times requires a bit of queue tuning. I didn't
want to open pandoras box by cluttering this discussion WRT that. ;)
Yeah, the chatter certainly has gone up lately. However, I must admit
I don't mind it so much as there is not the flaming that is so
prevalent on c.o.v.
Regards, Tim. MX Maintainer
Any new releases on the horizon and where is the current these days?
I still have V5.4 licensed from MadGoat.
This does drift a bit off topic...so I'll keep it brief, as I think
there may be some people that use MX on here. If you want more info,
then follow up with me off-list...
MX V6.1 is nearing release. MMK has been put into github and it has
been the test bed for developing VMS software using git (there is
currently no client for anyone asking, but I'm working on that). There
are a number of fixes and new features (see me for current release
notes). The production release date is March 1st, along with MMK V5.0
and new releases of WATCHER and NETLIB. I've been busy...:-)
If you'd like to know more, mail me privately.
Regards, Tim.
