5 Jul
2019
5 Jul
'19
2:05 p.m.
Here's pot stirrer for a holiday Friday afternoon:
How many different protocols / methods can we collectively come up with
for how email can be transferred?
I'm primarily thinking about between servers (MTA-to-MTA). But I'm also
willing to accept servers and clients (MTA-to-MUA). Where you can /
could run at least one server yourself.
? SMTP(S)
? UUCP (rmail)
? MMDF
? X.400
? Microsoft Exchange proprietary protocol
? Novell GroupWise proprietary protocol
? Lotus (IBM) Domino proprietary protocol
? FidoNet (FTN)
? BITNET
? Direct file access - group Post Office
? Direct file access - mail spool
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
2:26 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 05:09:13PM -0400, Dennis Boone via cctalk wrote:
yep ;)
? SMTP(S)
FTP was used before SMTP existed.
De
--
- db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db
2:10 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 03:05:32PM -0600, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
Here's pot stirrer for a holiday Friday
afternoon:
How many different protocols / methods can we collectively come up with
for how email can be transferred?
I'm primarily thinking about between servers (MTA-to-MTA). But I'm also
willing to accept servers and clients (MTA-to-MUA). Where you can /
could run at least one server yourself.
? SMTP(S)
? UUCP (rmail)
? MMDF
? X.400
? Microsoft Exchange proprietary protocol
? Novell GroupWise proprietary protocol
? Lotus (IBM) Domino proprietary protocol
? FidoNet (FTN)
? BITNET
? Direct file access - group Post Office
? Direct file access - mail spool
FTP
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
Diane
--
- db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db
2:39 p.m.
This is tedious.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> On Behalf Of Dennis Boone via
cctalk
Sent: 05 July 2019 22:29
To: Grant Taylor <cctalk at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net>; General Discussion:
On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: Email delivery protocols / methods.
? FidoNet (FTN)
As long as we're being silly, this isn't really one protocol. There are a number
of different ones, which can probably mostly be characterized as thin wrappers (FTS-0001,
Yoohoo(/2u2), etc) around common file transfer protocols (zmodem, xmodem, and others).
De
2:40 p.m.
On 7/5/19 5:28 PM, Dennis Boone via cctalk wrote:
Well, if the idea is to get that silly, UUCP isn't one
protocol either. And, technically. it isn't for moving
email at all. Like FTP it is for moving files. It is
what happens after the files have been moved that makes
email, email.
bill
? FidoNet
(FTN)
As long as we're being silly, this isn't really one protocol. There are
a number of different ones, which can probably mostly be characterized
as thin wrappers (FTS-0001, Yoohoo(/2u2), etc) around common file
transfer protocols (zmodem, xmodem, and others).
2:40 p.m.
These days Microsoft Exchange uses SMTP
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> On Behalf Of Grant Taylor via
cctalk
Sent: 05 July 2019 22:06
To: cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Email delivery protocols / methods.
Here's pot stirrer for a holiday Friday afternoon:
How many different protocols / methods can we collectively come up with
for how email can be transferred?
I'm primarily thinking about between servers (MTA-to-MTA). But I'm also
willing to accept servers and clients (MTA-to-MUA). Where you can / could
run at least one server yourself.
? SMTP(S)
? UUCP (rmail)
? MMDF
? X.400
? Microsoft Exchange proprietary protocol
? Novell GroupWise proprietary protocol
? Lotus (IBM) Domino proprietary protocol
? FidoNet (FTN)
? BITNET
? Direct file access - group Post Office
? Direct file access - mail spool
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
3:06 p.m.
Grant Taylor wrote:
Here's pot stirrer for a holiday Friday afternoon:
It's not a holiday in most of the world, including where I am, however...
How many different protocols / methods can we collectively come up with
for how email can be transferred?
I'm primarily thinking about between servers (MTA-to-MTA). But I'm also
willing to accept servers and clients (MTA-to-MUA). Where you can /
could run at least one server yourself.
? SMTP(S)
? UUCP (rmail)
? MMDF
? X.400
? Microsoft Exchange proprietary protocol
? Novell GroupWise proprietary protocol
? Lotus (IBM) Domino proprietary protocol
? FidoNet (FTN)
? BITNET
BITNET isn't really a protocol. Perhaps you mean NJE which was the protocol
used to implement the BITNET and related networks? Although I think BSMTP
(batch SMTP) was usually used to transfer mail over NJE networks.
(Speaking of which, anyone want to join an NJE network?)
? Direct file access - group Post Office
I'm not sure what this one is. Does it refer to POP/POP2/POP3?
? Direct file access - mail spool
I have no idea what this one is. "Mail spool" could mean mean all sorts of
different things on all sorts of different systems.
Another one was the coloured book protocol used between academic
establishments over X.25 networks in the UK and Ireland and probably
elsewhere, Grey maybe, I forget which, probably for the best.
Then there is DECnet and/or Mail-11 depending on what level of protocol you
are talking about. And phonenet which I often heard about but never saw.
I worked for an email provider for about 15 years. We used just about every
protocol you can think of to transfer mail to customers, including those
already listed plus Kermit / X/Y/Zmodem / Blast (a file transfer package few
seem to have heard of) wrapped up in protocols we came up with ourselves
which often also used stuff like Zip to compress the data for transmission.
We used them to feed mail into all sorts of email systems long since come
and gone, for example CCmail, Microsoft Mail and Pegasus Mail, to name but
three from the 1990s.
Perhaps it would be easier to come up with a list of protocols that were
never used to transfer email? Fred! Help me out here!
Regards,
Peter Coghlan
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
Chris Long wrote:
This is tedious.
Maybe so but it's not as tedious as your response.
Btw, are we related? There are Longs in my family tree.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
4:27 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 03:05:32PM -0600, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
[...]
How many different protocols / methods can we
collectively come up with for
how email can be transferred?
I use rsync (over ssh) for transferring between a couple of my mail servers. It
is perhaps one of my favourite pieces of software and I must have shifted many
hundreds of terabytes with it by now.
Andrew Tridgell's well-earned PhD thesis where he describes rsync and the
related technologies he invented is, unlike most theses, actually readable and
quite interesting if you're into that sort of thing.
4:40 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 16:05 Grant Taylor via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org wrote:
Here's pot stirrer for a holiday Friday
afternoon:
How many different protocols / methods can we collectively come up with
for how email can be transferred?
I'm primarily thinking about between servers (MTA-to-MTA). But I'm also
willing to accept servers and clients (MTA-to-MUA). Where you can /
could run at least one server yourself.
? SMTP(S)
? UUCP (rmail)
? MMDF
? X.400
? Microsoft Exchange proprietary protocol
? Novell GroupWise proprietary protocol
? Lotus (IBM) Domino proprietary protocol
? FidoNet (FTN)
? BITNET
? Direct file access - group Post Office
? Direct file access - mail spool
I have vague memories of batch email transfer utilities from the BBS
world. They were readers and/or transfer agents, but I imagine some had
their own transfer protocols and file formats. The only two I can recall at
the moment were QWK and Blue Wave. This probably has some tie-in to
FIDOnet as well.
In Tedium,
j
6 Jul
6 Jul
11:57 a.m.
On Jul 5, 2019, at 5:05 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Here's pot stirrer for a holiday Friday afternoon:
How many different protocols / methods can we collectively come up with for how email can
be transferred?
I'm primarily thinking about between servers (MTA-to-MTA). But I'm also willing
to accept servers and clients (MTA-to-MUA). Where you can / could run at least one server
yourself.
There's the MAIL-11 protocol (end to end, no MTAs) and the DECmail protocol which may
be some OSI-like thing, I'm not sure anymore.
For real strangeness there is the PLATO mail protocol, which involves writing the mail
into files, which are then extracted from PLATO into the OS file system by a periodic
batch job, then sent to another system via file transfer (FTP or a predecessor), then
pushed into the PLATO file system, then picked up by a mail agent at that end. Ugh.
paul
12:33 p.m.
Those who quibble about the ftp being a separate entity from mail
protocol would do well to look at RFC 524 from 1973. There, the MAIL
command is implemented within the ftp structure (that is, it is an ftp
command).
I've found it interesting that 524 never addresses the matter of data
representation: (7 bit ASCII PDP-10), (8-bit IBM EBCDIC), (6-bit Univac
Fieldata), (9-bit MULTICS), etc.
This makes sense when viewed in the light of RFC 354 (ftp), as 354 makes
provision for non-7-bit ASCII codes.
--Chuck
8 Jul
8 Jul
8:27 p.m.
I'm combining my replies into one message to avoid spamming the mailing
list.
Thank you all for intriguing responses. :-)
On 7/5/19 3:28 PM, Dennis Boone via cctalk wrote:
Fair enough.
On 7/5/19 3:40 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
? FidoNet
(FTN)
As long as we're being silly, this isn't really one protocol.
There are a number of different ones, which can probably mostly be
characterized as thin wrappers (FTS-0001, Yoohoo(/2u2), etc) around
common file transfer protocols (zmodem, xmodem, and others). Well, if the idea is to get that silly, UUCP isn't
one protocol either.
And, technically. it isn't for moving email at all. Like FTP it is
for moving files. It is what happens after the files have been moved
that makes email, email.
Also fair enough.
On 7/5/19 4:06 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote:
It's not a holiday in most of the world, including
where I am, however...
;-)
BITNET isn't really a protocol. Perhaps you mean
NJE which was the
protocol used to implement the BITNET and related networks?
Uh ? Ya! I meant NJE. ;-)
Although I think BSMTP (batch SMTP) was usually used
to transfer
mail over NJE networks.
$ReadingList++
(Speaking of which, anyone want to join an NJE
network?)
Where can I find out more?
I have no idea what this one is. "Mail
spool" could mean mean all
sorts of different things on all sorts of different systems.
I was thinking an MUA accessing files in the mail spool (traditionally
/var/spool/mail as far as I know) and not using an intermediate protocol
(POP3 / IMAP / etc.).
Another one was the coloured book protocol used
between academic
establishments over X.25 networks in the UK and Ireland and probably
elsewhere, Grey maybe, I forget which, probably for the best.
$ReadingList++
Then there is DECnet and/or Mail-11?
I don't know how I missed that.
?depending on what level of protocol you are talking
about.
Valid question. I don't have a distinction at the moment.
And phonenet which I often heard about but never saw.
I think I have a term collision in my head. I /think/ I'm thinking of
Home Phoneline Networking Alliance.
I worked for an email provider for about 15 years. We
used just
about every protocol you can think of to transfer mail to customers,
including those already listed plus Kermit / X/Y/Zmodem / Blast (a file
transfer package few seem to have heard of) wrapped up in protocols
we came up with ourselves which often also used stuff like Zip to
compress the data for transmission. We used them to feed mail into all
sorts of email systems long since come and gone, for example CCmail,
Microsoft Mail and Pegasus Mail, to name but three from the 1990s.
Intriguing.
I think that CCmail / Microsoft Mail / Pegasus Mail were email
technologies that used shared access to a common "Post Office"
(directory structure).
On 7/5/19 5:27 PM, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:
I use rsync (over ssh) for transferring between a
couple of my mail servers.
Hum.
I'm curious to know more. Are you transferring / synchronizing mail
boxes? Or are you using rsync as an intermediate transport between and
outgoing spool on one system and an incoming spool on another system?
On 7/5/19 5:40 PM, Jason T via cctalk wrote:
I have vague memories of batch email transfer
utilities from the
BBS world. They were readers and/or transfer agents, but I imagine
some had their own transfer protocols and file formats. The only two
I can recall at the moment were QWK and Blue Wave. This probably
has some tie-in to FIDOnet as well.
I've heard of QWK and "BinkP" is coming to mind for some reason.
On 7/6/19 12:57 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
There's the MAIL-11 protocol (end to end, no MTAs)
and the DECmail
protocol which may be some OSI-like thing, I'm not sure anymore.
I guess I don't know enough about MAIL-11 to understand why you say
end-to-end / no MTA.
Was DECmail the OSI X.400 email implementation that DEC produced (I
think) in the '90s?
For real strangeness there is the PLATO mail protocol,
which involves
writing the mail into files, which are then extracted from PLATO into
the OS file system by a periodic batch job, then sent to another system
via file transfer (FTP or a predecessor), then pushed into the PLATO
file system, then picked up by a mail agent at that end. Ugh.
$ReadingList++
On 7/6/19 1:33 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
Those who quibble about the ftp being a separate
entity from mail
protocol would do well to look at RFC 524 from 1973. There, the MAIL
command is implemented within the ftp structure (that is, it is an
ftp command).
Yep.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
9 Jul
9 Jul
6:14 a.m.
On Jul 8, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
On 7/6/19 12:57 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
No mail servers. You address mail to node::user and it contacts the mail protocol
listener at that node, which drops the message into the mailbox of that user on that
system.
There's the MAIL-11 protocol (end to end, no
MTAs) and the DECmail protocol which may be some OSI-like thing, I'm not sure anymore.
I guess I don't know enough about MAIL-11 to understand why you say end-to-end / no
MTA. Was DECmail the OSI X.400 email implementation that
DEC produced (I think) in the '90s?
Yes, in ALL-IN-ONE and the like. An interesting point is that it was not really accepted
as the internal mail tool (except by some corporate overhead departments); engineering
persisted in using MAIL-11 based email on the internal network.
For real
strangeness there is the PLATO mail protocol, which involves writing the mail into files,
which are then extracted from PLATO into the OS file system by a periodic batch job, then
sent to another system via file transfer (FTP or a predecessor), then pushed into the
PLATO file system, then picked up by a mail agent at that end. Ugh.
$ReadingList++
5:43 p.m.
On 7/9/19 9:14 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
The "protocol listener" as you call it is the mail server.
UUCP and SMTP worked the same way until the dawn of networked MUA's
that let the mail remain on some system other than the user systems.
bill
On Jul 8, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Grant Taylor via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
On 7/6/19 12:57 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
No mail servers. You address mail to node::user and it contacts the mail protocol
listener at that node, which drops the message into the mailbox of that user on that
system. There's the MAIL-11 protocol (end to end, no
MTAs) and the DECmail protocol which may be some OSI-like thing, I'm not sure anymore.
I guess I don't know enough about MAIL-11 to understand why you say end-to-end / no
MTA. 
1991
days inactive
1996
days old
17 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
abuse＠cabal.org.uk -
bill.gunshannon＠hotmail.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cctalk＠beyondthepale.ie -
cctalk＠gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net -
dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com -
db＠db.net -
drb＠msu.edu -
lyndon＠orthanc.ca -
newsgroups＠micromuseum.co.uk -
paulkoning＠comcast.net -
silent700＠gmail.com -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com