21 Jan
2021
21 Jan
'21
7:42 a.m.
People,
I'm trying to wrap my head around cc:Mail version numbers.
Various products such as Mobile and Gateways have their own separate
series of numbers, but the main products seem to be as follows.
Release Database Appeared in
1? ? ?
2? 6? ?
3? 6? ?
4? 6 ?
5 6 1995
6 8 1996
7? 8 ?
8 8 1997
I saw someplace that I cannot find now that DB6 is from 1989.
Can anybody fill in the missing numbers?
So for example, there is a package on Ebay right now
https://www.ebay.com/itm/LOTUS-ccMAIL-in-original-box-diskettes-manuals-Win…
that seems to say `Release 2.01' and 1993. How does that compute?
/Tomas
7:59 a.m.
I was using CC:Mail at Westinghouse in 1988. Very small mailbox limits,
I remember having to run compacts on the Novell server a lot back then.
The system was using a flat file database on the server, each client
would interact directly with the mail database. Easy to corrupt, big
pain in the rear.
No VAPs were used on the server, so it was truly client only. About 40
people in the office if I remember.
Had a CC:Mail Async gateway set up to communicate with the office in
Beltsville MD.
When I went to the Computer Society in 1995, we had CC:Mail deployed
without a server. Implememented a server, the system still needed
constant compacting and purging (2gb mail limit or something like that)
so I went with Lotus Domino Notes and never looked back. The SMTP
gateway for CC:Mail would crash a lot, so switching it from DOS to OS2
fixed the reliability problems.
Say what you will about Notes, but it *never* corrupted the mail data
store. Ran that on OS/2 server, then Windows NT 4.0.
C
On 1/21/2021 10:48 AM, Tomas By via cctalk wrote:
R3 1992 also
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:42:32 +0100, Tomas By wrote:
Release Database Appeared in
1? ? ?
2? 6? ?
3? 6? 1992
4? 6 ?
5 6 1995
6 8 1996
7? 8 ?
8 8 1997
/Tomas
8:07 a.m.
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:59:25 +0100, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote:
[...] Easy to corrupt, big pain in the rear. [...]
still needed constant compacting and purging [...]
Well, what I am at looking at is having one single user, and running
it emulated, so I think it seems like a good solution (only files
plus one separate program per task).
/Tomas
8 a.m.
CC:Mail used to have "Versions" in the 80's if I recall.
"Releases" came
when Lotus bought them.
C
On 1/21/2021 10:48 AM, Tomas By via cctalk wrote:
R3 1992 also
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:42:32 +0100, Tomas By wrote:
Release Database Appeared in
1? ? ?
2? 6? ?
3? 6? 1992
4? 6 ?
5 6 1995
6 8 1996
7? 8 ?
8 8 1997
/Tomas
8:56 a.m.
CC:Mail used
to have "Versions" in the 80's if I recall. "Releases"
came when Lotus bought them.
Ok, so 1,2,3 happened quickly? 
9:09 a.m.
In my company we were using cc:Mail version 4 around 1994. I installed that
one, plus cc:mail for UUCP previously around 1993 in one of our departments.
Regards
Sergio
El jue., 21 ene. 2021 16:42, Tomas By via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
escribi?:
People,
I'm trying to wrap my head around cc:Mail version numbers.
Various products such as Mobile and Gateways have their own separate
series of numbers, but the main products seem to be as follows.
Release Database Appeared in
1? ? ?
2? 6? ?
3? 6? ?
4? 6 ?
5 6 1995
6 8 1996
7? 8 ?
8 8 1997
I saw someplace that I cannot find now that DB6 is from 1989.
Can anybody fill in the missing numbers?
So for example, there is a package on Ebay right now
https://www.ebay.com/itm/LOTUS-ccMAIL-in-original-box-diskettes-manuals-Win…
that seems to say `Release 2.01' and 1993. How does that compute?
/Tomas
9:16 a.m.
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:09:25 +0100, Sergio Pedraja wrote:
In my company we were using cc:Mail version 4 around
1994. I
installed that one, plus cc:mail for UUCP previously around 1993 in
one of our departments.
Ok, thanks.
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:48:38 +0100, Tomas By via cctalk wrote:
Release Database Appeared in
1? ? ?
2 6? ?
3 6? 1992
4 6 1993
5 6 1995
6 8 1996
7? 8 ?
8 8 1997
/Tomas
1391
days inactive
1391
days old
8 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
cz＠alembic.crystel.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
spedraja＠gmail.com -
tomas＠basun.net