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
