7 Oct
2020
7 Oct
'20
10:03 a.m.
And one more thing,
Am wondering about the possibility of setting up an interface between
modern Unix email and the embedded client for cc:Mail on the HP 200LX.
Various versions of cc:Mail are available from archive.org and
vetusware.com, but the missing link seems to be the "client" type
connection from the cc:Mail post office to the internet, i.e. for the
PO machine to connect periodically and collect mail, rather than just
acting as a server.
Have not been able to find much technical information about cc:Mail. I
did see a Lotus development kit for sale somwhere but seems to have
lost the link.
Does anybody here know anything about this? Are there any books or
technical documents on cc:Mail available anywhere?
/Tomas
7 Oct
7 Oct
10:16 a.m.
New subject: Mail
Thomas,
This API connection for cc:mail is Lotus VIM, vendor independent mail except
only lotus every implemented it. Somewhere I had some code that would
interface to VIM but I have no idea where it is now.
I think it listened for a local SMTP connection and then sent it via
cc:mail. I think the idea was that you could use OUTLOOK Express to handle
"mailto:" urls and then deliver them via cc:mail.
I probably still have the API documents but they also still appears to be
some on the IBM web site.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> On Behalf Of Tomas By via
cctalk
Sent: 07 October 2020 15:04
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: cc:Mail
And one more thing,
Am wondering about the possibility of setting up an interface between
modern Unix email and the embedded client for cc:Mail on the HP 200LX.
Various versions of cc:Mail are available from archive.org and
vetusware.com, but the missing link seems to be the "client" type
connection from the cc:Mail post office to the internet, i.e. for the PO
machine to connect periodically and collect mail, rather than just acting
as a
server.
Have not been able to find much technical information about cc:Mail. I did
see a Lotus development kit for sale somwhere but seems to have lost the
link.
Does anybody here know anything about this? Are there any books or
technical documents on cc:Mail available anywhere?
/Tomas
10:29 a.m.
New subject: Mail
Hi,
Yes, I did find documents on VIM, but there is also the API to the PO
to consider.
In the Lotus cc:Mail developer kit, do you think there is enough stuff
to put together a "reverse client" -- an app that gets mail from a
modern email provider using POP/IMAP/whatever it is?
/Tomas
On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 16:16:52 +0200, <dave.g4ugm at gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas,
This API connection for cc:mail is Lotus VIM, vendor independent mail except
only lotus every implemented it. Somewhere I had some code that would
interface to VIM but I have no idea where it is now.
I think it listened for a local SMTP connection and then sent it via
cc:mail. I think the idea was that you could use OUTLOOK Express to handle
"mailto:" urls and then deliver them via cc:mail.
I probably still have the API documents but they also still appears to be
some on the IBM web site.
Dave
10:38 a.m.
New subject: Mail
Tomas
I think that is possible. I am sure the code I wrote, in nasty VB6 would
listen for an SMTP connection and then forward it VIM and then to the
internet. I will go and have a look.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Tomas By <tomas at basun.net>
Sent: 07 October 2020 15:29
To: dave.g4ugm at gmail.com
Cc: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: Mail
Hi,
Yes, I did find documents on VIM, but there is also the API to the PO to
consider.
In the Lotus cc:Mail developer kit, do you think there is enough stuff to
put
together a "reverse client" -- an app that
gets mail from a modern email
provider using POP/IMAP/whatever it is?
/Tomas
On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 16:16:52 +0200, <dave.g4ugm at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas,
> This API connection for cc:mail is Lotus VIM, vendor independent mail
> except only lotus every implemented it. Somewhere I had some code that
> would interface to VIM but I have no idea where it is now.
> I think it listened for a local SMTP connection and then sent it via
> cc:mail. I think the idea was that you could use OUTLOOK Express to
> handle "mailto:" urls and then deliver them via cc:mail.
> I probably still have the API documents but they also still appears to
> be some on the IBM web site.
> Dave
10:45 a.m.
New subject: Mail
Hi again,
I think sending out is already covered, the problematic bit is that
for this to work in the modern "ecosystem", the cc:Mail PO would need
to periodically (ie constantly) check for new mail from the provider,
and collect it.
There are probably other things I am missing also.
/Tomas
On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 16:38:30 +0200, <dave.g4ugm at gmail.com> wrote:
Tomas
I think that is possible. I am sure the code I wrote, in nasty VB6 would
listen for an SMTP connection and then forward it VIM and then to the
internet. I will go and have a look.
Dave
2:58 p.m.
New subject: Mail
On 10/7/20 8:45 AM, Tomas By via cctalk wrote:
the cc:Mail PO would need to periodically (ie
constantly) check for
new mail from the provider, and collect it.
/Something/ needs to periodically check for new mail from the provider.
I don't think that it needs to necessarily be the cc:Mail PO.
Something like fetchmail can periodically poll and collect email.
You can probably also configure an SMTP gateway and use regular mail
routing (possibly via forwarding) to push email into the system.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
11:22 a.m.
These may all be dead short-circuited neurons, but IIRC there was a
cc:Mail Gateway or Internet Gateway special product you needed to buy
that would run on a dedicated PC box (under DOS?) and would talk in
turn to your cc:Mail post office server and the 'net to exchange email
messages in and out. It had the semi-annoying habit of retaining
plaintext copies of all incoming or outgoing messages (one or the
other, I forget which). There was also some non-trivial configuration
setup required on both the Gateway and cc:Mail servers to explain all
this to cc:Mail. I think there was some sort of route name or gateway
name specified with email addresses, possibly with a comma after the
internet address, but like I said those brain cells are almost gone.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 9:04 AM Tomas By via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
And one more thing,
Am wondering about the possibility of setting up an interface between
modern Unix email and the embedded client for cc:Mail on the HP 200LX.
Various versions of cc:Mail are available from archive.org and
vetusware.com, but the missing link seems to be the "client" type
connection from the cc:Mail post office to the internet, i.e. for the
PO machine to connect periodically and collect mail, rather than just
acting as a server.
Have not been able to find much technical information about cc:Mail. I
did see a Lotus development kit for sale somwhere but seems to have
lost the link.
Does anybody here know anything about this? Are there any books or
technical documents on cc:Mail available anywhere?
/Tomas
12:04 p.m.
I think there was a gateway associated with one of the free mail severs...
... some of Lotus docs are still here
ftp://ftp.www.ibm.com/software/lotus/comm/ccmail/dev_tools/
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> On Behalf Of Gavin Scott via
cctalk
Sent: 07 October 2020 16:22
To: Tomas By <tomas at basun.net>; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-
Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: cc:Mail
These may all be dead short-circuited neurons, but IIRC there was a cc:Mail
Gateway or Internet Gateway special product you needed to buy that would
run on a dedicated PC box (under DOS?) and would talk in turn to your
cc:Mail post office server and the 'net to exchange email messages in and
out. It had the semi-annoying habit of retaining plaintext copies of all
incoming or outgoing messages (one or the other, I forget which). There was
also some non-trivial configuration setup required on both the Gateway and
cc:Mail servers to explain all this to cc:Mail. I think there was some sort of
route name or gateway name specified with email addresses, possibly with a
comma after the internet address, but like I said those brain cells are almost
gone.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 9:04 AM Tomas By via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
wrote:
>
> And one more thing,
>
> Am wondering about the possibility of setting up an interface between
> modern Unix email and the embedded client for cc:Mail on the HP 200LX.
>
> Various versions of cc:Mail are available from archive.org and
> vetusware.com, but the missing link seems to be the "client" type
> connection from the cc:Mail post office to the internet, i.e. for the
> PO machine to connect periodically and collect mail, rather than just
> acting as a server.
>
> Have not been able to find much technical information about cc:Mail. I
> did see a Lotus development kit for sale somwhere but seems to have
> lost the link.
>
> Does anybody here know anything about this? Are there any books or
> technical documents on cc:Mail available anywhere?
>
> /Tomas
12:05 p.m.
Oh this brings back memories. Back in the 1980's I worked with
Westinghouse/IRD and we used CC:Mail. When we partnered with Macro
systems we tied the two together using a CC:Mail gateway package that
ran over dialup modems.
Moving into the 90's, the IEEE Computer Society was on CC:Mail in 1994
when I got there. We tied it to the Internet using a CC:Mail gateway on
DOS *and* a CC:Mail to SMTP gateway application. Both had to be running
and yes, the CC:Mail SMTP gateway had a lot of cruft pile up on it. It
also locked up a LOT.
In order to make the thing useful we ran it on OS/2 pre warp. That made
it a lot more stable and I was able to script a process to restart the
window when it crashed. Allowed me to sleep at night. But the main fail
in CC:Mail was that the mail database could only be 2gb in size and it
corrupted a LOT.
1995 or so we put in Lotus Notes mail and migrated the CC:Mail database
to it. Infinitely more reliable, ran on OS/2 3.0 very well as a server,
and as a side project I coded Notes Script into what became probably the
first end user identity system on the internet (E-Accounts) which
allowed us to roll out E-Aliases, member renewal by internet using our
home-made credit card system, online registrations for Supercomputing/95
and the CS Digital Library in 1996 (I built that too).
All because I was (a) Bored and (b) Lazy. Amazing times, but Lotus Notes
was damn near indestructible. Never lost an email message.
I should really write that history down sometime and somewhere. In the
early 1990's IEEE lost their mind and for a few brief years (up to 2000)
we at the Computer Society were free to innovate and really built some
amazing things. Then the IEEE got their stuff together and smushed it....
Ah well.
CZ
On 10/7/2020 11:22 AM, Gavin Scott via cctalk wrote:
These may all be dead short-circuited neurons, but
IIRC there was a
cc:Mail Gateway or Internet Gateway special product you needed to buy
that would run on a dedicated PC box (under DOS?) and would talk in
turn to your cc:Mail post office server and the 'net to exchange email
messages in and out. It had the semi-annoying habit of retaining
plaintext copies of all incoming or outgoing messages (one or the
other, I forget which). There was also some non-trivial configuration
setup required on both the Gateway and cc:Mail servers to explain all
this to cc:Mail. I think there was some sort of route name or gateway
name specified with email addresses, possibly with a comma after the
internet address, but like I said those brain cells are almost gone.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 9:04 AM Tomas By via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> And one more thing,
>
> Am wondering about the possibility of setting up an interface between
> modern Unix email and the embedded client for cc:Mail on the HP 200LX.
>
> Various versions of cc:Mail are available from archive.org and
> vetusware.com, but the missing link seems to be the "client" type
> connection from the cc:Mail post office to the internet, i.e. for the
> PO machine to connect periodically and collect mail, rather than just
> acting as a server.
>
> Have not been able to find much technical information about cc:Mail. I
> did see a Lotus development kit for sale somwhere but seems to have
> lost the link.
>
> Does anybody here know anything about this? Are there any books or
> technical documents on cc:Mail available anywhere?
>
> /Tomas
12:05 p.m.
Hi,
Yes, this sounds plausible. You don't happen to remember if it was
a Lotus/cc:Mail or a third party product?
I managed something like this for MS mail at one point.
/Tomas
On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 17:22:27 +0200, Gavin Scott wrote:
These may all be dead short-circuited neurons, but
IIRC there was a
cc:Mail Gateway or Internet Gateway special product you needed to buy
that would run on a dedicated PC box (under DOS?) and would talk in
turn to your cc:Mail post office server and the 'net to exchange email
messages in and out. It had the semi-annoying habit of retaining
plaintext copies of all incoming or outgoing messages (one or the
other, I forget which). There was also some non-trivial configuration
setup required on both the Gateway and cc:Mail servers to explain all
this to cc:Mail. I think there was some sort of route name or gateway
name specified with email addresses, possibly with a comma after the
internet address, but like I said those brain cells are almost gone.
2:41 p.m.
Back in the 1990s, a company I used to work for offered email services
to people running cc:Mail, Lotus Notes, MSMAIL, Pegasus Mail and various
other oddball mail servers (X.400 even) using PMDF on VMS. PMDF is still
a commercial product but a hobbyist license is available. PMDF is also
available to run on UNIX (and Windows) but I don't know whether the same
gateways to esoteric systems and hobbyist license are available on those
platforms.
I recall one of the problems with cc:Mail (and Lotus Notes) was that it
did not not have any concept of "envelope addresses". This meant that it
was nearly impossible to avoid message loops in the case of undeliverable
messages, especially when mailing lists were involved.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
Hi,
Yes, this sounds plausible. You don't happen to remember if it was
a Lotus/cc:Mail or a third party product?
I managed something like this for MS mail at one point.
/Tomas
On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 17:22:27 +0200, Gavin Scott wrote:
These may all be dead short-circuited neurons,
but IIRC there was a
cc:Mail Gateway or Internet Gateway special product you needed to buy
that would run on a dedicated PC box (under DOS?) and would talk in
turn to your cc:Mail post office server and the 'net to exchange email
messages in and out. It had the semi-annoying habit of retaining
plaintext copies of all incoming or outgoing messages (one or the
other, I forget which). There was also some non-trivial configuration
setup required on both the Gateway and cc:Mail servers to explain all
this to cc:Mail. I think there was some sort of route name or gateway
name specified with email addresses, possibly with a comma after the
internet address, but like I said those brain cells are almost gone.
2:55 p.m.
On 10/7/20 8:03 AM, Tomas By via cctalk wrote:
Am wondering about the possibility of setting up an
interface between
modern Unix email and the embedded client for cc:Mail on the HP 200LX.
Translation / regurgitation: You're wondering about the possibility of
connecting a cc:Mail Post Office to the Internet email (SMTP/POP3/IMAP)
ecosystem somehow. Is that correct?
Various versions of cc:Mail are available from
archive.org and
vetusware.com, but the missing link seems to be the "client" type
connection from the cc:Mail post office to the internet, i.e. for the
PO machine to connect periodically and collect mail, rather than just
acting as a server.
I don't know that I've ever seen, or realized, that there was a utility
that would retrieve email from a provider via POP3 / IMAP and inject it
into cc:Mail. But my ignorance thereof does not preclude it's existence.
I have seen such utilities that re-inject email into a local SMTP based
solution. "fetchmail" is one such example. I also believe that some
versions of Microsoft Exchange have this capability built in.
Have not been able to find much technical information
about cc:Mail. I
did see a Lotus development kit for sale somwhere but seems to have
lost the link.
Does anybody here know anything about this? Are there any books or
technical documents on cc:Mail available anywhere?
I'll take a look in my pile of Lotus disks. (I have an unhealthy
interest in old networking / email / collaboration technologies.)
I think that I have a few different /Lotus/ things that interface with
cc:Mail. I also think that I have some non-Lotus things that will also
interface with cc:Mail; e.g. Microsoft Exchange and / or Novell
GroupWise. I expect that amongst the various plastic coasters that I
have, possibly combined with other utilities, there is a way to get
Internet email into and out of your Unix cc:Mail client.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
3:17 p.m.
On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 20:55:23 +0200, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
Translation / regurgitation: You're wondering
about the possibility
of connecting a cc:Mail Post Office to the Internet email
(SMTP/POP3/IMAP) ecosystem somehow. Is that correct?
Well, in theory it could possibly be directly between 200LX and
Internet, without any PO, but realistically: yes.
It's been a while now, but one cc:Mail PO version I tried had an SMTP
add-on for sending mail, and also, I believe, POP/IMAP for dial-up,
i.e. acting as a server using those protocols.
What I believe I am looking for is a POP/IMAP client side, to run
on/with the cc:Mail PO, getting mails from Internet to cc:Mail.
I don't know that I've ever seen, or realized,
that there was a
utility that would retrieve email from a provider via POP3 / IMAP and
inject it into cc:Mail. But my ignorance thereof does not preclude
it's existence.
Right.
But there were bridges, apparently, so they must have done it?
I'll take a look in my pile of Lotus disks. (I
have an unhealthy
interest in old networking / email / collaboration technologies.)
I think that I have a few different /Lotus/ things that interface with
cc:Mail. I also think that I have some non-Lotus things that will
also interface with cc:Mail; e.g. Microsoft Exchange and / or Novell
GroupWise. I expect that amongst the various plastic coasters that I
have, possibly combined with other utilities, there is a way to get
Internet email into and out of your Unix cc:Mail client.
Sounds good.
On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 20:58:32 +0200, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
On 10/7/20 8:45 AM, Tomas By via cctalk wrote:
No, it can be separate.
the cc:Mail PO would need to periodically (ie
constantly) check for
new mail from the provider, and collect it.
/Something/ needs to periodically check for new mail from the
provider. I don't think that it needs to necessarily be the cc:Mail
PO. Something like fetchmail can periodically poll and
collect email.
So getting the mail from fetchmail into cc:Mail should be possible
with the Lotus dev stuff?
You can probably also configure an SMTP gateway and
use regular mail
routing (possibly via forwarding) to push email into the system.
If by system you mean cc:Mail then I do not really see how this works.
/Tomas
3:35 p.m.
On 10/7/20 1:17 PM, Tomas By wrote:
Well, in theory it could possibly be directly between
200LX and
Internet, without any PO, but realistically: yes.
I don't see how that would work. If all the client knows how to do is
talk to a cc:Mail Post Office, then I think the Post Office is going to
be /required/. Now, if the client knows how to talk to something other
than the P.O. ... sure.
It's been a while now, but one cc:Mail PO version
I tried had an SMTP
add-on for sending mail, and also, I believe, POP/IMAP for dial-up,
i.e. acting as a server using those protocols.
I'm not surprised that such a gateway existed.
What I believe I am looking for is a POP/IMAP client
side, to run
on/with the cc:Mail PO, getting mails from Internet to cc:Mail.
Agreed.
Or something to perform that function, even if it's not the original
solution from Lotus (or whomever owned cc:Mail before Lotus acquired them).
Right.
But there were bridges, apparently, so they must have done it?
Ya. I think gateways were the quintessential solution to connect P.O.s
to the Internet or other email systems in the '80s & '90s.
Sounds good.
See my other reply from a few minutes ago.
No, it can be separate.
;-)
So getting the mail from fetchmail into cc:Mail should
be possible
with the Lotus dev stuff?
I don't know about the dev stuff.
I was thinking about an SMTP gateway in-to / out-of a cc:Mail P.O. Then
have fetchmail (et al.) pull email from wherever and feed it into the
SMTP gateway.
If by system you mean cc:Mail then I do not really see
how this works.
No. I mean configure a new (sub)domain with it's own MX record that
point to the SMTP gateway (probably via intermediate SMTP server) so
that email naturally flows into it.
You can't (practically) have @domain-one.example email go into two
separate SMTP servers. So one trick is to feed it into one and have it
selectively forwad specific addresses to @ccmail-domain.example.
Aside: There are ways to do this, but they are complex and most people
don't want to go there. E.g. Sendmail's LDAP routing.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
3:46 p.m.
On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 21:35:13 +0200, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
I don't see how that would work. If all the
client knows how to do is
talk to a cc:Mail Post Office, then I think the Post Office is going
to be /required/.
Well, theoretically, you could have another program that emulates the
PO server side. It does not need to anything other than get the mails
and talk to the client (over PC serial port).
I was thinking about an SMTP gateway in-to / out-of a
cc:Mail P.O.
Then have fetchmail (et al.) pull email from wherever and feed it into
the SMTP gateway.
My understanding is that the SMTP gateway is out from PO only.
/Tomas
3:57 p.m.
On 10/7/20 1:46 PM, Tomas By wrote:
Well, theoretically, you could have another program
that emulates
the PO server side.
I think that we have different understandings of what the Post Office is
in older email systems.
To me, the Post Office, is a collection of files that live in a
directory structure. Said file / directory structure is then directly
accessed by the email client. As in the email client reads from and
writes to files, meaning that it does not talk to a program / daemon /
service across the network. It's just that this collection of files &
directories lived on a common network drive.
It does not need to anything other than get the mails
and talk to
the client
But, based on my understanding, the cc:Mail client doesn't talk to a
server. It reads / writes files directly. Hence the need to have
something else, e.g. the gateway, communicate between the P.O. and the
rest of the world.
I don't see how you can avoid the P.O.'s file / directory structure.
Maybe I'm wrong.
(over PC serial port).
Hum. That make make things more entertaining.
Is the serial port for communications between the cc:Mail client and the
cc:Mail P.O.? Or is the serial port how you will need <what ever> to
interface with the rest of the world?
My understanding is that the SMTP gateway is out from
PO only.
I don't know. The MS-Mail SMTP gateway that I messed with was both
inbound from the world and outbound to the world. But the cc:Mail
gateway could easily have been different. Of course, SMTP is not the
same thing as pulling from POP3 or IMAP. But, fortunately fetchmail (et
al.) can act as the gateway between POP3/IMAP and SMTP to talk to
another gateway between SMTP and cc:Mail P.O.
Moving parts (read: things that can go wrong), there are a lot of them. ;-)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
4 p.m.
On 10/7/20 1:57 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
I don't see how you can avoid the P.O.'s file
/ directory structure.
This isn't the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I can see a hypothetical case where a program could leverage something
like a Filesystem in User SpacE (a.k.a. FUSE) to emulate the P.O.
directory structure on one side and then speak the relevant Internet
standard protocols on the other side.
But, is that /really/ avoiding the P.O.'s file and directory structure? ;-)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
4:10 p.m.
On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 21:57:28 +0200, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
I think that we have different understandings of what
the Post Office
is in older email systems. [...]
Well, we are talking past each other. When I say client/server I mean
the connection over serial port/modem between the mobile client, not
on the same LAN as the PO, and the PO.
Maybe I'm wrong. [...]
Is the serial port for communications between the cc:Mail client and
the cc:Mail P.O.?
Yes.
I don't know. The MS-Mail SMTP gateway that I
messed with was both
inbound from the world and outbound to the world. But the cc:Mail
gateway could easily have been different.
Well, I am not sure either. I need to have another look at that SMTP
gateway, I guess.
But if it is like you say they would not have needed a separate
Internet bridge? They could just have used the SMTP gateway?
/Tomas
4:56 p.m.
On 10/7/20 2:10 PM, Tomas By wrote:
Well, we are talking past each other.
That's entirely possible. That's why I elaborated on what I meant,
explicitly to give you an opportunity to confirm or refute.
When I say client/server I mean the connection over
serial port/modem
between the mobile client, not on the same LAN as the PO, and the PO.
Oh. What I know as the remote client support. I know even less about that.
But, yes, that could probably be a daemon of sorts without an actual P.O.
Yes.
Well, I am not sure either. I need to have another look at that SMTP
gateway, I guess.
:-)
But if it is like you say they would not have needed a
separate
Internet bridge? They could just have used the SMTP gateway?
It might have been a different limitation from the time, imposed by the
configuration in play.
I see a lot of documentation talking about doing SMTP between a PC
running DOS or NT (the two platforms that the MS-Mail SMTP Gateway ran
on) and a Unix (typically Solaris) box that would gateway between SMTP
and UUCP.
I think the P.O. usually lived on one system which a lot of people
accessed. Then the SMTP gateway lived on another system, where it would
gateway between the P.O. on one side ans SMTP on another side.
Given the purported instability of the various gateways, I think there
was a fair bit of advantage in having it on it's own system so that it
could be rebooted without impacting anything else. The same would not
be true if the gateway was run on the file server holding the P.O.
There's also using the SMTP gateway between multiple P.O.s, each on
different departmental file servers, and the Internet.
All speculation about something I was not part of and have only read
things about. -- Save for the fact that I did get MS-Mail to SMTP
Gateway working in a lab within the last couple of years.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
8:13 p.m.
On 10/7/20 2:10 PM, Tomas By wrote:
Well, we are talking past each other. When I say
client/server I
mean the connection over serial port/modem between the mobile client,
not on the same LAN as the PO, and the PO.
You've piqued my interest.
I've done some more reading on cc:Mail. It seems that you're talking
about cc:Mail /Mobile/, and not cc:Mail (proper). It seems as if
cc:Mail /Mobile/ is an add-on product meant to allow mobile users access
a cc:Mail Post Office.
There is a more true client / server version of cc:Mail, but it was
apparently named cc:Guardian.
There were also the SMTP, POP3, and IMAP gateways for cc:Mail Post
Offices. Per the Readme.1st file on the cc:Mail 8.1 CD-ROM that I'm
looking at:
- cc:Mail IMAP Server
- cc:Mail POP3 Server
- cc:Mail Link to SMTP
- cc:Mail Mobile
Among many other things.
Also, per the Readme.1st file, cc:Mail 8.1, including it's cc:Mail
/Mobile/ add-on used a Post Office directory structure.
Some of the reading that I did today indicated that even cc:Mail Mobile
used a Post Office. It's just that it was a local single person Post
Office and that cc:Mail Mobile did some sort of undefined communications
over the modem connection. As such, I'm guessing that this cc:Mail
Mobile communications protocol is quite proprietary. Wikipedia's
cc:Mail article indicates that cc:Mail Remote was developed for a few HP
*LX devices.
If the cc:Mail that you have on your device is the cc:Mail Mobile or
Remote that is meant to connect to cc:Mail Mobile in the central office,
then I think I may have a solution for you.
Fetchmail -> cc:Mail SMTP -> Internet SMTP server
^
|
V
cc:Mail PO
^
|
V
cc:Mail Mobile
^
:
:
:
V
cc:Mail Remote
I think that the top three lines could likely run one system.
Do you think this might do what you are wanting to do? After all, it
seems like it's cc:Mail's answer to your question.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
8:57 p.m.
On Thu, 08 Oct 2020 02:13:22 +0200, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
I've done some more reading on cc:Mail. It seems
that you're talking
about cc:Mail /Mobile/, and not cc:Mail (proper).
Well, both? According to the "about" window in the client on the
200LX, it is indeed "cc:Mail mobile", but I believe I also need to
set up a "normal" post office. (The 200LX manual does not say anything
specific about versions.)
There were also the SMTP, POP3, and IMAP gateways for
cc:Mail Post
Offices. [...]
Yes, it may have been 8.1 I looked at a while ago. At that time I had
the impression the SMTP gateway only handled outgoing mail, but that
does not really make sense, and apparently it handles both directions.
Fetchmail -> cc:Mail SMTP -> Internet SMTP
server
^
|
V
cc:Mail PO
^
|
V
cc:Mail Mobile
^
:
:
:
V
cc:Mail Remote
I think that the top three lines could likely run one system.
Well, I think the bottom two are the same (i.e. delete "mobile" and
change "remote"->"mobile"). I was able to connect the 200LX to a
Post
Office using null modem with no "mobile" or "remote" add-on installed
on the windows PC, if I remember correctly.
I think "mobile" was a product for laptops, and the one on the 200LX
was a minimal version of that.
Do you think this might do what you are wanting to do?
After all, it
seems like it's cc:Mail's answer to your question.
Yes, probably. All I can say is that it did not seem so simple when I
looked at it some time ago.
(I think my problem was that I did not consider Fetchmail. I was
looking for that functionality in the cc:Mail documentation.)
/Tomas
9:41 p.m.
On 10/7/20 6:57 PM, Tomas By wrote:
Well, both? According to the "about" window
in the client on the 200LX,
it is indeed "cc:Mail mobile", but I believe I also need to set up a
"normal" post office. (The 200LX manual does not say anything specific
about versions.)
I'm betting that there's a nomenclature collision. Specifically, it
sounds like some versions of the mobile client use "cc:Mail Mobile" and
possibly others use "cc:Mail Remote". It also sounds like the central
office also uses "cc:Mail Mobile" as what the client dials into. So
simply stating "cc:Mail Mobile" is ambiguous to which end of the
connection is being discussed and what technology is used therein.
Yes, it may have been 8.1 I looked at a while ago. At
that time I had
the impression the SMTP gateway only handled outgoing mail, but that
does not really make sense, and apparently it handles both directions.
It may have been that there wasn't a solution to get email inbound to
you. That jives with your "SMTP gateway only handled outgoing mail" memory.
After all, I'm suggesting fetchmail to do the inbound to the SMTP server
from the POP3 / IMAP provider. ;-)
Well, I think the bottom two are the same (i.e. delete
"mobile"
and change "remote"->"mobile").
I don't think they are.
They may be the same software / product. But they are serving two
distinct functions. The upper one is what allows road warrior clients
to dial into, the "server" service if you will. The lower one is the
road warrior "client" which does the dialing. Ergo, I don't think they
are the same thing. They are probably in different (logical if not
physical) locations too.
Fetchmail -> cc:Mail SMTP -> Internet SMTP server
^
|
V
cc:Mail PO
^
|
V
cc:Mail Mobile
^
: Corporate Office LAN
-------------------:-----------------------------
: Road Warrior
V
cc:Mail Remote
I was able to connect the 200LX to a Post Office using
null modem
with no "mobile" or "remote" add-on installed on the windows PC,
if I remember correctly.
What software were you running on the 200LX?
There are ways to extend the Corporate Office LAN over a modem connection.
There's a chance that various versions of cc:Mail include the client
portion that connects to the corporate server. (That would actually
make a lot of sense.)
I think "mobile" was a product for laptops,
and the one on the 200LX
was a minimal version of that.
Hum.
My read is that cc:Mail Mobile is also the server side product that
allows dialing in and exchanging email.
Yes, probably. All I can say is that it did not seem
so simple when
I looked at it some time ago.
The lack of fetchmail (or something like it) means that things get more
complicated and you likely have to play email routing games, which are
non-trivial.
(I think my problem was that I did not consider
Fetchmail. I was
looking for that functionality in the cc:Mail documentation.)
Remember, back in thee '90s, people weren't normally trying to do things
like pull email from an ISP's server into a local server with things
like fetchmail. Instead, they would have their ISP's be an SMTP Relay
for their domain and use normal SMTP routing to get email into their
SMTP server. The latter function is something that cc:Mail's Link to
SMTP will quite happily do.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
8 Oct
8 Oct
4:38 a.m.
On Thu, 08 Oct 2020 03:41:03 +0200, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
On 10/7/20 6:57 PM, Tomas By wrote:
I meant products. In your terms (I believe), the upper bit is part of
the PO and the lower one is "mobile".
(There may have been some evolution, so that in earlier versions the
dialling-in server was a separate thing.)
[...] I think the bottom two are the same (i.e.
delete "mobile" and
change "remote"->"mobile").
I don't think they are.
They may be the same software / product. But they are serving two
distinct functions. The upper one is what allows road warrior clients
to dial into, the "server" service if you will. The lower one is the
road warrior "client" which does the dialing. [...] What software were you running on the 200LX?
[...]
My read is that cc:Mail Mobile is also the server side product that
allows dialing in and exchanging email.
It's in ROM on the 200LX. When I select Help/About in the app, it says
"cc:Mail mobile". I cannot find anything in the manual, but I am sure
I have read it elsewhere also. I cannot remember seeing "cc:Mail remote"
anywhere, until now.
/Tomas
2:02 p.m.
On 10/8/20 2:38 AM, Tomas By wrote:
I meant products. In your terms (I believe), the upper
bit is part
of the PO and the lower one is "mobile".
(There may have been some evolution, so that in earlier versions the
dialling-in server was a separate thing.)
It seems like we're in agreement about functionality and that we're down
to terminology applied to the various functions.
It's in ROM on the 200LX. When I select Help/About
in the app, it
says "cc:Mail mobile". I cannot find anything in the manual, but
I am sure I have read it elsewhere also. I cannot remember seeing
"cc:Mail remote" anywhere, until now.
Terminology, thanks to product evolution and marketing whims is probably
... nebulous if not actually ambiguous. ;-)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
7 Oct
7 Oct
4:13 p.m.
My recollection of the cc:Mail SMTP Gateway (that now sounds like the
right name to me) was that it was definitely bidirectional with
respect to SMTP/internet traffic. There were differences in that
inbound and outbound processing were rather different internally IIRC,
but that was pretty much transparent to the user. My recollection of
cc:Mail itself was that it was indeed a full server that clients
interacted with over a network connection. I *think* we ran it on
Netware with IPX/SPX as the client network transport in those days
(but again my memory could be faulty), and eventually got the SMTP
Gateway to get internet gateway connectivity and it ran on a minimal
PC system as a dedicated server. I seem to recall waiting a year or
more for the SMTP Gateway to finally become available. It seemed like
a rather half-assed solution compared to the Lotus Notes gateway etc.
which I think may have run as native Netware NLMs rather than needing
the kludgy PC gateway. This would all have been in like 1990-95-ish
give-or-take I think.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 2:57 PM Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 10/7/20 1:46 PM, Tomas By wrote:
Well, theoretically, you could have another
program that emulates
the PO server side.
I think that we have different understandings of what the Post Office is
in older email systems.
To me, the Post Office, is a collection of files that live in a
directory structure. Said file / directory structure is then directly
accessed by the email client. As in the email client reads from and
writes to files, meaning that it does not talk to a program / daemon /
service across the network. It's just that this collection of files &
directories lived on a common network drive.
It does not need to anything other than get the
mails and talk to
the client
But, based on my understanding, the cc:Mail client doesn't talk to a
server. It reads / writes files directly. Hence the need to have
something else, e.g. the gateway, communicate between the P.O. and the
rest of the world.
I don't see how you can avoid the P.O.'s file / directory structure.
Maybe I'm wrong.
(over PC serial port).
Hum. That make make things more entertaining.
Is the serial port for communications between the cc:Mail client and the
cc:Mail P.O.? Or is the serial port how you will need <what ever> to
interface with the rest of the world?
My understanding is that the SMTP gateway is out
from PO only.
I don't know. The MS-Mail SMTP gateway that I messed with was both
inbound from the world and outbound to the world. But the cc:Mail
gateway could easily have been different. Of course, SMTP is not the
same thing as pulling from POP3 or IMAP. But, fortunately fetchmail (et
al.) can act as the gateway between POP3/IMAP and SMTP to talk to
another gateway between SMTP and cc:Mail P.O.
Moving parts (read: things that can go wrong), there are a lot of them. ;-)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
4:28 p.m.
P.S. As far as I can recall I never connected my 200LX up to our
cc:Mail even though I carried a 95/100/200 around with me pretty much
all the time in those days.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:13 PM Gavin Scott <gavin at learn.bio> wrote:
My recollection of the cc:Mail SMTP Gateway (that now sounds like the
right name to me) was that it was definitely bidirectional with
respect to SMTP/internet traffic. There were differences in that
inbound and outbound processing were rather different internally IIRC,
but that was pretty much transparent to the user. My recollection of
cc:Mail itself was that it was indeed a full server that clients
interacted with over a network connection. I *think* we ran it on
Netware with IPX/SPX as the client network transport in those days
(but again my memory could be faulty), and eventually got the SMTP
Gateway to get internet gateway connectivity and it ran on a minimal
PC system as a dedicated server. I seem to recall waiting a year or
more for the SMTP Gateway to finally become available. It seemed like
a rather half-assed solution compared to the Lotus Notes gateway etc.
which I think may have run as native Netware NLMs rather than needing
the kludgy PC gateway. This would all have been in like 1990-95-ish
give-or-take I think.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 2:57 PM Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/7/20 1:46 PM, Tomas By wrote:
> > Well, theoretically, you could have another program that emulates
> > the PO server side.
>
> I think that we have different understandings of what the Post Office is
> in older email systems.
>
> To me, the Post Office, is a collection of files that live in a
> directory structure. Said file / directory structure is then directly
> accessed by the email client. As in the email client reads from and
> writes to files, meaning that it does not talk to a program / daemon /
> service across the network. It's just that this collection of files &
> directories lived on a common network drive.
>
> > It does not need to anything other than get the mails and talk to
> > the client
>
> But, based on my understanding, the cc:Mail client doesn't talk to a
> server. It reads / writes files directly. Hence the need to have
> something else, e.g. the gateway, communicate between the P.O. and the
> rest of the world.
>
> I don't see how you can avoid the P.O.'s file / directory structure.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong.
>
> > (over PC serial port).
>
> Hum. That make make things more entertaining.
>
> Is the serial port for communications between the cc:Mail client and the
> cc:Mail P.O.? Or is the serial port how you will need <what ever> to
> interface with the rest of the world?
>
> > My understanding is that the SMTP gateway is out from PO only.
>
> I don't know. The MS-Mail SMTP gateway that I messed with was both
> inbound from the world and outbound to the world. But the cc:Mail
> gateway could easily have been different. Of course, SMTP is not the
> same thing as pulling from POP3 or IMAP. But, fortunately fetchmail (et
> al.) can act as the gateway between POP3/IMAP and SMTP to talk to
> another gateway between SMTP and cc:Mail P.O.
>
> Moving parts (read: things that can go wrong), there are a lot of them. ;-)
>
>
>
> --
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die
5:19 p.m.
On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 22:28:19 +0200, Gavin Scott via cctalk wrote:
P.S. As far as I can recall I never connected my 200LX
up to our
cc:Mail even though I carried a 95/100/200 around with me pretty much
all the time in those days.
I never had a cc:Mail account, but I used the 200LX client for
Internet email, using a file-level conversion tool, sometime in the
mid-late 1990s.
It was not really convenient, as the modem was bigger than the
Palmtop, and then all the cables.
/Tomas
7:50 p.m.
CC:Mail could run in two ways. For the longest time it was just a shared
file on a network server that all the clients pointed to. Well, a
directory, and this is part of the reason it got corrupted as hell.
Rebuilding CC:Mail usually required shutting down the PO (writing a file
that told the clients to go away) and rebuilding. That's why the gateway
systems worked, they just talked to the same folder and stuck files in
the input and output directories. The SMTP tool required a unix box to
send mail (it was too stupid to really do it by itself) and to CC:Mail
it looked like a "foreign" post office.
I think at the end they had a true client-server model, but by that time
Notes was a much better solution.
The other fun email system at the time was WordPerfect Office. That one
ran as an NLM and once again it was file based from the client but
corrupted a lot less. And once again SMTP was a foreign PO, and in fact
Crystelcom was founded as a way to use the Wordperfect Async Gateway to
hook up to a modem to the client's server that would call my house every
hour and deliver internet mail to my post office which also had a copy
of Wordperfect plus a SMTP gateway. And pick up their mail, at 14.4kbps
with compression it was pretty quick. A pair of Sun 386i's (beaker and
bunsen) then served as DNS servers for the client's domain as well as
smtp servers for outbound and inbound mail. I did the same thing for
Microsoft mail, but it sucked more and to be honest that was why I was
loathe to support CC:Mail.
For $100 a month it was a steal for a lot of small companies and
nonprofits to communicate on the Internet. And for me it was simple as
dirt, I just needed a pair of phone lines to handle the incoming calls
and mail would queue up. Outbound internet was a Trailblazer modem to my
ISP of the time running ppp from one of the 386i's.
If two clients called at the same time one would get a busy and would
call back later (5m). If the mail server crashed mail would just queue
and be delivered when I rebooted it. It was literally a "open mailbox,
hello check" and paid for a good chunk of the down payment on the house.
Oddly enough the most valuable thing was that companies registered their
domains (through me) years before the great rush. This is why a lot of
small non-profits have domain names that reflect their initials as
opposed to crap. I never charged a transfer fee when they finally got
their T1 lines, that would have been evil.
Ultimately closed it down when the web got popular. I thought of getting
big by going into massive debt and hooking in T1's to the customers but
the company was profitable, simple, it served its purpose and I was ok
with letting it go. Probably a wise decision, my ISP actually made a
profit :-)
Ah those were the days.
CZ
On 10/7/2020 4:13 PM, Gavin Scott via cctalk wrote:
My recollection of the cc:Mail SMTP Gateway (that now
sounds like the
right name to me) was that it was definitely bidirectional with
respect to SMTP/internet traffic. There were differences in that
inbound and outbound processing were rather different internally IIRC,
but that was pretty much transparent to the user. My recollection of
cc:Mail itself was that it was indeed a full server that clients
interacted with over a network connection. I *think* we ran it on
Netware with IPX/SPX as the client network transport in those days
(but again my memory could be faulty), and eventually got the SMTP
Gateway to get internet gateway connectivity and it ran on a minimal
PC system as a dedicated server. I seem to recall waiting a year or
more for the SMTP Gateway to finally become available. It seemed like
a rather half-assed solution compared to the Lotus Notes gateway etc.
which I think may have run as native Netware NLMs rather than needing
the kludgy PC gateway. This would all have been in like 1990-95-ish
give-or-take I think.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 2:57 PM Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/7/20 1:46 PM, Tomas By wrote:
>> Well, theoretically, you could have another program that emulates
>> the PO server side.
>
> I think that we have different understandings of what the Post Office is
> in older email systems.
>
> To me, the Post Office, is a collection of files that live in a
> directory structure. Said file / directory structure is then directly
> accessed by the email client. As in the email client reads from and
> writes to files, meaning that it does not talk to a program / daemon /
> service across the network. It's just that this collection of files &
> directories lived on a common network drive.
>
>> It does not need to anything other than get the mails and talk to
>> the client
>
> But, based on my understanding, the cc:Mail client doesn't talk to a
> server. It reads / writes files directly. Hence the need to have
> something else, e.g. the gateway, communicate between the P.O. and the
> rest of the world.
>
> I don't see how you can avoid the P.O.'s file / directory structure.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong.
>
>> (over PC serial port).
>
> Hum. That make make things more entertaining.
>
> Is the serial port for communications between the cc:Mail client and the
> cc:Mail P.O.? Or is the serial port how you will need <what ever> to
> interface with the rest of the world?
>
>> My understanding is that the SMTP gateway is out from PO only.
>
> I don't know. The MS-Mail SMTP gateway that I messed with was both
> inbound from the world and outbound to the world. But the cc:Mail
> gateway could easily have been different. Of course, SMTP is not the
> same thing as pulling from POP3 or IMAP. But, fortunately fetchmail (et
> al.) can act as the gateway between POP3/IMAP and SMTP to talk to
> another gateway between SMTP and cc:Mail P.O.
>
> Moving parts (read: things that can go wrong), there are a lot of them. ;-)
>
>
>
> --
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die
8:52 p.m.
On 10/7/20 5:50 PM, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote:
CC:Mail could run in two ways. For the longest time it
was just a shared
file on a network server that all the clients pointed to. Well, a
directory, and this is part of the reason it got corrupted as hell.
Rebuilding CC:Mail usually required shutting down the PO (writing a file
that told the clients to go away) and rebuilding. That's why the gateway
systems worked, they just talked to the same folder and stuck files in
the input and output directories. The SMTP tool required a unix box to
send mail (it was too stupid to really do it by itself) and to CC:Mail
it looked like a "foreign" post office.
I think at the end they had a true client-server model, but by that time
Notes was a much better solution.
See my reply at 6:13 for comments about cc:Guardian / IMAP / POP3.
The other fun email system at the time was WordPerfect
Office.
Was that (the precursor to) GroupWise? Or something independent?
That one ran as an NLM and once again it was file
based from the
client but corrupted a lot less. And once again SMTP was a foreign PO,
and in fact Crystelcom was founded as a way to use the Wordperfect
Async Gateway to hook up to a modem to the client's server that would
call my house every hour and deliver internet mail to my post office
which also had a copy of Wordperfect plus a SMTP gateway. And pick
up their mail, at 14.4kbps with compression it was pretty quick. A
pair of Sun 386i's (beaker and bunsen) then served as DNS servers for
the client's domain as well as smtp servers for outbound and inbound
mail. I did the same thing for Microsoft mail, but it sucked more
and to be honest that was why I was loathe to support CC:Mail.
Why were you loathe to support cc:Mail? Did Microsoft Mail and / or the
WordPerfect Office thing produce more income?
For $100 a month it was a steal for a lot of small
companies and
nonprofits to communicate on the Internet. And for me it was simple as
dirt, I just needed a pair of phone lines to handle the incoming calls
and mail would queue up. Outbound internet was a Trailblazer modem to my
ISP of the time running ppp from one of the 386i's.
For the time, and the service you were providing, I'd say that was a
good price.
If two clients called at the same time one would get a
busy and would
call back later (5m). If the mail server crashed mail would just queue
and be delivered when I rebooted it. It was literally a "open mailbox,
hello check" and paid for a good chunk of the down payment on the house.
Oddly enough the most valuable thing was that companies registered their
domains (through me) years before the great rush. This is why a lot of
small non-profits have domain names that reflect their initials as
opposed to crap. I never charged a transfer fee when they finally got
their T1 lines, that would have been evil.
Ultimately closed it down when the web got popular. I thought of getting
big by going into massive debt and hooking in T1's to the customers but
the company was profitable, simple, it served its purpose and I was ok
with letting it go. Probably a wise decision, my ISP actually made a
profit :-)
Ah those were the days.
Interesting story. Thank you for sharing.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
9:43 p.m.
See my reply at 6:13 for comments about cc:Guardian /
IMAP / POP3.
I don't remember Guardian, but I do remember CC:Remote. It did use an
interface system it would call and copy down the person's mailbox file
as a weird sub-mailbox. I mean it worked, but it was a pain.
The other fun
email system at the time was WordPerfect Office.
Was that (the precursor to) GroupWise?? Or something independent? Why were you loathe to support cc:Mail?? Did Microsoft
Mail and / or the
WordPerfect Office thing produce more income?
CC:Mail was very parsnickity and blew up a lot. Likewise the SMTP
gateway was very unreliable, I finally ran it on OS/2, but that wasn't
around in late 1980's/early 90's.
Ah those were
the days.
Interesting story.? Thank you for sharing.
10 p.m.
On 10/7/20 7:43 PM, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote:
I don't remember Guardian, but I do remember
CC:Remote. It did use an
interface system it would call and copy down the person's mailbox file
as a weird sub-mailbox. I mean it worked, but it was a pain.
Ya. Any time you try to have a local / cached copy of a mail box things
get interesting.
The *ONLY* thing that I've seen handle it well is Lotus Notes & Domino.
Yes. Novell bought it from Wordperfect Inc, and
re-badged Office to
GroupWise. Groupwise could run as a shared file model or a client-server
system with a POA running on NLMs. That worked pretty well, and I used
that at Science from 2000-2013 or so.
Interesting.
Now WordPerfect Office is on my to mess with list at some point.
cc:Mail has been on it. That particular itch is being scratched now.
But it still had the SMTP NLM.
:-)
CC:Mail was very parsnickity and blew up a lot.
Likewise the SMTP
gateway was very unreliable, I finally ran it on OS/2, but that wasn't
around in late 1980's/early 90's.
Ah.
Such was the case with most Post Office / shared directory structure
mail systems.
Sure! One of these days I really need to write all
this stuff down.
:-)
There was a lot going on at the dawn of the internet
age, I still
remember when we had the ceiling collapse at the Computer Society
because all the serial cables in the ceiling for the VAX overloaded the
drop ceiling.
It was a funny moment that morning, a Sparc20 smushed under a ceiling.
Funny "ha ha" or "uh oh"? I'm betting the latter. At least at
the time.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
3:22 p.m.
On 10/7/20 12:55 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
I'll take a look in my pile of Lotus disks.
Much of what I have is more Notes / Domino specific. But I do have a
cc:Mail documentation CD-ROM that's from '95.
Email me directly if you want to know more details about what's on it or
to discuss how to get a copy to you.
I also think that I have some non-Lotus things that
will also interface
with cc:Mail; e.g. Microsoft Exchange and / or Novell GroupWise.
Let me know if you are interested in any of these options.
I also wonder if you could abuse something that a client did years ago.
Microsoft Outlook configured with SMTP / POP3 accounts to periodically
retrieve email and then rely on client side rules to file messages in
their MS-Mail P.O. I don't know if the same would work with a cc:Mail
connector like was done with the MS-Mail connector.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
18 Dec
18 Dec
8:43 p.m.
Everybody,
Am experimenting with a HP 200LX and cc:Mail v. 8.1, and would like to
know more about `interactive mode.' There is a choice when connecting
between `copy & disconnect' and `interactive.' When I try the latter I
get a pop-up window saying
The version of Router you are
connecting to does NOT support
interactive mode!
The version of the router program is `cc:Mail NT ROUTER Version 6.10.00.4'
In the following article
https://www.palmtoppaper.com/ptphtml/30/pt300054.htm
it says
`I have noticed that cc:Mail Mobile lacks some of the capabilities of the desktop
version:
1. cc:Mail Mobile only allows me to "Copy unread mail and disconnect." [...]
2. cc:Mail on your desktop allows for an "Interactive connection to
Post Office." Whenever an e-mail message comes in you get
beeped. You can compose a reply on the spot and send it off immediately.'
This desktop version is apparently Windows cc:Mail version 2.0
But it seems odd that there would be an option for it on the Palmtop
(and described at some length in the manual) if it just was not
available.
Does anybody know the conditions for using interactive mode? Which
versions of the router program supports it?
/Tomas
9:04 p.m.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 8:44 PM Tomas By via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Everybody,
Am experimenting with a HP 200LX and cc:Mail v. 8.1, and would like to
know more about `interactive mode.' There is a choice when connecting
between `copy & disconnect' and `interactive.' When I try the latter I
get a pop-up window saying
The version of Router you are
connecting to does NOT support
interactive mode!
The version of the router program is `cc:Mail NT ROUTER Version 6.10.00.4'
In the following article
https://www.palmtoppaper.com/ptphtml/30/pt300054.htm
it says
`I have noticed that cc:Mail Mobile lacks some of the capabilities of the
desktop version:
1. cc:Mail Mobile only allows me to "Copy unread mail and disconnect."
[...]
2. cc:Mail on your desktop allows for an "Interactive connection to
Post Office." Whenever an e-mail message comes in you get
beeped. You can compose a reply on the spot and send it off immediately.'
This desktop version is apparently Windows cc:Mail version 2.0
But it seems odd that there would be an option for it on the Palmtop
(and described at some length in the manual) if it just was not
available.
Does anybody know the conditions for using interactive mode? Which
versions of the router program supports it?
/Tomas
Tomas,
Do you have a functioning Novell network set up with networking hardware?
Bill
20 Dec
20 Dec
12:41 a.m.
Hi again,
Another snippet. In the 200LX manual
http://h10032.www1.hp.com/ctg/Manual/bpia5259.pdf
it says (p. 29-2):
Interactive Connection, which is a continuous connection to your
Post Office that you can make if your Post Office meets certain
conditions---ask your Post Office Administrator.
Have searched the cc:Mail documentation I have access to for
"interactive" without finding anything.
What are these conditions?
/Tomas
On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 02:43:50 +0100, Tomas By via cctalk wrote:
Everybody,
Am experimenting with a HP 200LX and cc:Mail v. 8.1, and would like to
know more about `interactive mode.' There is a choice when connecting
between `copy & disconnect' and `interactive.' When I try the latter I
get a pop-up window saying
The version of Router you are
connecting to does NOT support
interactive mode!
The version of the router program is `cc:Mail NT ROUTER Version 6.10.00.4'
In the following article
https://www.palmtoppaper.com/ptphtml/30/pt300054.htm
it says
`I have noticed that cc:Mail Mobile lacks some of the capabilities of the desktop
version:
1. cc:Mail Mobile only allows me to "Copy unread mail and disconnect." [...]
2. cc:Mail on your desktop allows for an "Interactive connection to
Post Office." Whenever an e-mail message comes in you get
beeped. You can compose a reply on the spot and send it off immediately.'
This desktop version is apparently Windows cc:Mail version 2.0
But it seems odd that there would be an option for it on the Palmtop
(and described at some length in the manual) if it just was not
available.
Does anybody know the conditions for using interactive mode? Which
versions of the router program supports it?
/Tomas
1285
days inactive
1359
days old
35 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
billdegnan＠gmail.com -
cctalk＠beyondthepale.ie -
cctalk＠gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net -
cz＠alembic.crystel.com -
dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com -
gavin＠learn.bio -
tomas＠basun.net