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
On 2012-07-10 22:16, Bob Armstrong wrote:
X.400? Well that's kinda amusing as of itself, no?
Ok, I'll confess - I'd never heard of x.400 until now. Like everything
else in the universe, it's in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.400
"G=Bob;S=Armstrong;O=SpareTimeGizmos;P=SpareTimeGizmos;C=us" ?????
Give me "bob at jfcl.com" any day :-)
X.400 is/was horrible. But it smalls an awful lot like ldap... Now, let me tell you what I think of ldap... :-)
Johnny
Yeah, the current nodelist has about 4,000 entries.
Mostly uses IP as a transport.
Sampsa
On 10 Jul 2012, at 23:59, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 07/10/2012 04:53 PM, Sampsa Laine wrote:
Ironically I built a MAIL-11 - Fidonet gateway called FIDOGW for HECnet, it actually works, but I think the VM is down.
Neat! Umm...are there any pieces of Fidonet still operational? Jeeze
the last time I even thought about Fidonet was 25 years ago. My best
friend ran a node on Fidonet, in New Hope, PA (on a Franklin Ace 1000 I
think?). I ran an RCP/M machine at the time.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 10.7.2012 23:42, Bob Armstrong wrote:
However, nobody has expressed any interest.
The problem is that everybody on this list, by definition, already has
SMTP Internet mail. A MAIL-11 gateway, nifty as it might be, just doesn't
add anything.
Bob
.
Quite so, but if someone wants to send mail to an Internet recipient from a DECnet-only system (on HECnet) without TCP/IP or SMTP, that won't succeed without a gateway.
It might be that everyone has the needed gateways already, though.
Kari
On 07/10/2012 04:53 PM, Sampsa Laine wrote:
Ironically I built a MAIL-11 - Fidonet gateway called FIDOGW for HECnet, it actually works, but I think the VM is down.
Neat! Umm...are there any pieces of Fidonet still operational? Jeeze
the last time I even thought about Fidonet was 25 years ago. My best
friend ran a node on Fidonet, in New Hope, PA (on a Franklin Ace 1000 I
think?). I ran an RCP/M machine at the time.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
But what if we wanna send a Telex from HECnet? WHAT THEN?
Same company used to also have a telex gateway but it was retired before I
started there. I don't recall if it was implemented through PMDF or locally
written software.
I think if anyone wants to send a telex, they may have to look hard for someone
that wants to receive it.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
Ironically I built a MAIL-11 - Fidonet gateway called FIDOGW for HECnet, it actually works, but I think the VM is down.
Sampsa
On 10 Jul 2012, at 23:52, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 07/10/2012 04:42 PM, Bob Armstrong wrote:
However, nobody has expressed any interest.
The problem is that everybody on this list, by definition, already has
SMTP Internet mail. A MAIL-11 gateway, nifty as it might be, just doesn't
add anything.
In terms of functionality, you're right of course, but there's a
certain "warm fuzzy" just knowing... ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 07/10/2012 04:42 PM, Bob Armstrong wrote:
However, nobody has expressed any interest.
The problem is that everybody on this list, by definition, already has
SMTP Internet mail. A MAIL-11 gateway, nifty as it might be, just doesn't
add anything.
In terms of functionality, you're right of course, but there's a
certain "warm fuzzy" just knowing... ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
But what if we wanna send a Telex from HECnet? WHAT THEN?
Sampsa
On 10 Jul 2012, at 23:42, Peter Coghlan wrote:
Well, there used to be big plans about X.400 to become the global
standard of messaging...
I used to work for a company that used PMDF to interconnect various X.400
systems that could not otherwise interoperate.
It made a fair bit of income for the company but I would prefer not to
end up working with X.400 again and I certainly won't be going near it
for a hobby!
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
Well, there used to be big plans about X.400 to become the global
standard of messaging...
I used to work for a company that used PMDF to interconnect various X.400
systems that could not otherwise interoperate.
It made a fair bit of income for the company but I would prefer not to
end up working with X.400 again and I certainly won't be going near it
for a hobby!
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
On 2012-07-10, at 1:40 PM, Peter Coghlan wrote:
In my mind, using PMDF would be a better choice for SMTP<->DECnet
connectivity. I believe that it's available from Process Software
through their hobbyist program.
I agree. I've already mentioned that I'm running it here and my willingness
to use it to gateway mail from the internet to HECnet nodes.
However, nobody has expressed any interest. This is not entirely surprising
as by the time mail arrives in someones mail client, it is not going to look
any different or have any distinguishing characteristics that make it more
useful or interesting just because it has been transported over MAIL-11.
On the contrary. Some of us nerds will be doing a "View Headers" on every message just to see the circuitous route it took :)
Ian
However, nobody has expressed any interest.
The problem is that everybody on this list, by definition, already has
SMTP Internet mail. A MAIL-11 gateway, nifty as it might be, just doesn't
add anything.
Bob
In my mind, using PMDF would be a better choice for SMTP<->DECnet
connectivity. I believe that it's available from Process Software
through their hobbyist program.
I agree. I've already mentioned that I'm running it here and my willingness
to use it to gateway mail from the internet to HECnet nodes.
However, nobody has expressed any interest. This is not entirely surprising
as by the time mail arrives in someones mail client, it is not going to look
any different or have any distinguishing characteristics that make it more
useful or interesting just because it has been transported over MAIL-11.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
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*
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Well, there used to be big plans about X.400 to become the global standard of messaging...
Kari
On 10.7.2012 23:03, Sampsa Laine wrote:
X.400? Well that's kinda amusing as of itself, no?
Sampsa
On 10 Jul 2012, at 22:59, Dennis Boone wrote:
One thought occurred to me today; There used to be the Mailbus and
Message Router products running on VMS. They could be used to route
messages between different mail systems. They were used at DEC until
about late 90's. The addresses used the format user.name(a)*.mts.dec.com.
Unfortunately I don't remember much of them anymore, but just thought
that they could be used as a message gateway between HECnet and the
Internet. If I remember correctly, the VMS Hobbyist licenses included
those.
The packages are in at least the June '04 SPL:
MAILbus 400 2.0C 04RAA SSB 4 [MTAC020]
Application Program
Interface for
OpenVMS VAX
MAILbus 400 Message 3.0 04QAA SSB 4 [MTA030]
Transfer Agent for
OpenVMS VAX
MAILbus 400 Message 1.2C 342AA SSB 4 [XMRC012]
Router Gateway for
OpenVMS
and my PAKs from the hobbyist program do include these.
De
.
On 10.7.2012 23:22, Marc Chametzky wrote:
One thought occurred to me today; There used to be the Mailbus and
Message Router products running on VMS. They could be used to route
messages between different mail systems. They were used at DEC until
about late 90's. The addresses used the format user.name(a)*.mts.dec.com.
Unfortunately I don't remember much of them anymore, but just thought
that they could be used as a message gateway between HECnet and the
Internet. If I remember correctly, the VMS Hobbyist licenses included
those.
If someone has recent experience of those, he could possibly tell more
exact details about the feasibility.
In my mind, using PMDF would be a better choice for SMTP<->DECnet
connectivity. I believe that it's available from Process Software
through their hobbyist program.
Of course, I'm one of the former PMDF developers, so I'm biased. :-)
--Marc
.
I understand well your point. :)
You definitely know better because of your background. I know PMDF even less than MR & MB-400.
For me any choice which works well is fine. Of course someone have to take the responsibility to administer the gateway system.
I just happen to have most of the VMS SPL:s and the documentation. I can also dedicate a VAX or Alpha for the purpose. If needed, I could also take care of the adminstration after I've recalled the knowledge about MR & MB-400.
Let the jury make their verdict. :)
Kari
using PMDF would be a better choice for SMTP<->DECnet connectivity.
I believe that it's available from Process Software through their hobbyist
program.
PMDF is available thru the Hobbyist program, as is PMAS (anti-SPAM
software for VMS).
However, Multinet already has a SMTP <-> MAIL11 gateway built in if that's
all you want. No extra software is needed.
Bob
One thought occurred to me today; There used to be the Mailbus and Message Router products running on VMS. They could be used to route messages between different mail systems. They were used at DEC until about late 90's. The addresses used the format user.name(a)*.mts.dec.com.
Unfortunately I don't remember much of them anymore, but just thought that they could be used as a message gateway between HECnet and the Internet. If I remember correctly, the VMS Hobbyist licenses included those.
If someone has recent experience of those, he could possibly tell more exact details about the feasibility.
In my mind, using PMDF would be a better choice for SMTP<->DECnet connectivity. I believe that it's available from Process Software through their hobbyist program.
Of course, I'm one of the former PMDF developers, so I'm biased. :-)
--Marc
X.400? Well that's kinda amusing as of itself, no?
Ok, I'll confess - I'd never heard of x.400 until now. Like everything
else in the universe, it's in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.400
"G=Bob;S=Armstrong;O=SpareTimeGizmos;P=SpareTimeGizmos;C=us" ?????
Give me "bob at jfcl.com" any day :-)
Bob
X.400? Well that's kinda amusing as of itself, no?
Sampsa
On 10 Jul 2012, at 22:59, Dennis Boone wrote:
One thought occurred to me today; There used to be the Mailbus and
Message Router products running on VMS. They could be used to route
messages between different mail systems. They were used at DEC until
about late 90's. The addresses used the format user.name(a)*.mts.dec.com.
Unfortunately I don't remember much of them anymore, but just thought
that they could be used as a message gateway between HECnet and the
Internet. If I remember correctly, the VMS Hobbyist licenses included
those.
The packages are in at least the June '04 SPL:
MAILbus 400 2.0C 04RAA SSB 4 [MTAC020]
Application Program
Interface for
OpenVMS VAX
MAILbus 400 Message 3.0 04QAA SSB 4 [MTA030]
Transfer Agent for
OpenVMS VAX
MAILbus 400 Message 1.2C 342AA SSB 4 [XMRC012]
Router Gateway for
OpenVMS
and my PAKs from the hobbyist program do include these.
De
