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
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
