10 Mar
2007
10 Mar
'07
5 p.m.
Has anyone else noticed that ftp search services like archie seem to
have disappeared, that the content on ftp sites isn't indexed by
google very well and that large software archives seem to be
disappearing?
Try searching for old copies of fractint and they are hard to find,
even though they were everywhere as recently as 10 years ago.
What's happened to FTP?
Should we be working to archive large FTP software repositories?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
10 Mar
10 Mar
11:48 p.m.
At 3:00 PM -0700 3/10/07, Richard wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that ftp search services like
archie seem to
have disappeared, that the content on ftp sites isn't indexed by
google very well and that large software archives seem to be
disappearing?
Try searching for old copies of fractint and they are hard to find,
even though they were everywhere as recently as 10 years ago.
What's happened to FTP?
Should we be working to archive large FTP software repositories?
Well in the case of my anonymous FTP site at ftp://zane.brouhaha.com
it was offline for probably a year or so. Real life took priority.
It's back online and can still be accessed via that address or the
now more proper ftp://ftp.avanthar.com . Of course there isn't a
whole lot of use on the site, and never has been, but there are a
couple of gems.
My problem is that running an anonymous ftp site and having it
properly configured so that it can't be misused, and it doesn't
effect my ability to connect to FTP sites out on the net from my
internal network is a resource drain.
I think it was close to 6 years ago I archived a lot of the PDP-11
related stuff out there on FTP sites, as well as PDP-8, Dec
Professional, and DECmate software. At the time my big problem was
storing the stuff. I split it up so that it would fit on CD-R's. I
really should try to update the archive and rebuild it as DVD's, but
there is that pesky "real life" and to many other things to do. I've
not made any of these available as a mirror, in part because I simply
don't have the bandwidth.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
11 Mar
11 Mar
5:20 p.m.
Zane H. Healy wrote:
My problem is that running an anonymous ftp site and
having it properly
configured so that it can't be misused, and it doesn't effect my ability
to connect to FTP sites out on the net from my internal network is a
resource drain.
How about closing down FTP and setting up a chrooted sftp account? I
would hope that anyone interested in the archive has access to a machine
that can run an sftp client.
I think it was close to 6 years ago I archived a lot
of the PDP-11
related stuff out there on FTP sites, as well as PDP-8, Dec
Professional, and DECmate software. At the time my big problem was
storing the stuff. I split it up so that it would fit on CD-R's. I
really should try to update the archive and rebuild it as DVD's, but
there is that pesky "real life" and to many other things to do. I've
not made any of these available as a mirror, in part because I simply
don't have the bandwidth.
If I were voting, I'd say leave it grouped as CDs. I may be a
retrograde lunatic, but when the package groups themselves are small, I
find it a lot easier to find things when they're on 8 CDs vs 1 DVD.
Oh, and thanks! As you know, your archive has been a lot of help to
me more than once.
Doc
11:50 p.m.
My problem is
that running an anonymous ftp site and having it
properly configured so that it can't be misused, and it doesn't
effect my ability to connect to FTP sites out on the net from my
internal network is a resource drain.
How about closing down FTP and setting up a
chrooted sftp account?
12 Mar
12 Mar
3:01 a.m.
At 11:50 PM -0400 3/11/07, der Mouse wrote:
How much space are we talking about? I run an anonymous FTP server
that I'm reasonably confident is locked down fairly tight, and may be
able to find a place for some piles of bits, depending on how big the
piles are....
I like running my own server, it's just that it's no longer a high
enough priority that problems will be fixed immediately, unless it's
a security issue, at which case the service is likely to be taken
down immediately.
As for SFTP, I'm not a huge fan. I've killed telnet in favor of ssh,
but I can't see a real reason to kill anonymous ftp in favor of sftp.
If I'm hitting an anonymous FTP site, I expect to be able to use my
standard tools, and as such I think it only fair I serve up the same.
What does sftp offer that would benefit an anonymous FTP setup?
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
My problem is that running an anonymous ftp site and
having it
properly configured so that it can't be misused, and it doesn't
effect my ability to connect to FTP sites out on the net from my
internal network is a resource drain.
How about closing down FTP and setting up
a chrooted sftp account? 
3:45 a.m.
Zane H. Healy wrote:
. What does sftp offer that would benefit an anonymous
FTP setup?
Zane
the big thing that you have a problem with with FTP is the passive vs.
active issue. I don't think there is any advantage in sftp related to
that, but there are some servers I have found that don't deal with
anything but passive, and sometimes the standard tools I use
on linux have to be specially set to deal with them.
I prefer filezilla or winscp as my main gui's, which I apologize are
both windows utilities. But they hopefully will be duplicated on
linux and macos at some point.
Jim
3:20 a.m.
What does sftp
offer that would benefit an anonymous FTP setup?
the big thing that you have a
problem with with FTP is the passive
vs. active issue. I don't think there is any advantage in sftp
related to that, 
3:23 p.m.
New subject: Old terminal and some AES stuff.
I have two items here for free (you pick up) or the cost of shipping
and handling/packing up.
ADM-31 Terminal and User Reference Manual
AES: Word Processing #103-2004-02 (2 floppies) and some other discs
that I intend to wipe as they have "sermons &..." penciled on the
covers (1983ish).
BASE2, Inc Model 800 Printer Operators reference Manual (only)
AES training for using the Word Processing program (looks like) - a
bunch of single sided pages...
John :-#)#
--
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, VideoGames)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out"
10:18 p.m.
Someone wrote....
What does sftp offer that would benefit an anonymous
FTP setup?
the big thing that you have a problem with with FTP is the passive
vs. active issue. I don't think there is any advantage in sftp
related to that,
There's the active vs. passive issue which Sftp gets around quite handily.
But there's also the fact that ftp passwords are transmitted cleartext. You
might counter with "oh, but this is anonymous only so passwords dont
matter". Well, many ftp servers that offer anonymous access ALSO have
password authenticated users. I'd rather not put those users with higher
privs at risk because of the public users. Just keep them all encrypted.
I strongly prefer sftp over ftp... with one exception. sftp transfers are
slower than ftp transfers. I've never researched why, but would assume its
the crypto.
Also, the whole argument depends on the sensitivity of the data being
transmitted. Just from kneejerk reaction I always set up sftp instead of
ftp. But there are exceptions....
Jay West
10:23 p.m.
Jim wrote...
I prefer filezilla or winscp as my main gui's,
which I apologize are
both windows utilities. But they hopefully will be duplicated on
linux and macos at some point.
I have always been a huge proponent of Van Dyke's SecureCRT (telnet & ssh),
and in relation to this thread their companion product SecureFX (ftp &
sftp). For a commercial package, these are by far the best IMHO and I use
both very extensively every single day. To bring in another thread, it's one
of the few that I've seen get all the various terminal emulations 99.9%. But
SecureFX is bettern than winscp I think.
But for a non-commercial package... filezilla rocks! I wasn't aware of it
till fairly recently. It's quite nice.
Jay West
6:29 p.m.
Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that ftp search services like
archie seem to
have disappeared, that the content on ftp sites isn't indexed by
google very well and that large software archives seem to be
disappearing?
Try searching for old copies of fractint and they are hard to find,
even though they were everywhere as recently as 10 years ago.
What's happened to FTP?
Should we be working to archive large FTP software repositories?
The most interesting FTP archives disappeared in the early 90's
IMHO. Mostly migrated succesfully to other platforms, and then
migrated again, and then migrated again. Think of the way
classic micro software was on SIMTEL, then oak.oakland.edu, then
wherever it is today.
Even in its heyday (early 90's?) archie was completely unscalable
and really almost useless, even if you knew the filenames.
If you're worried about archiving, I'd focus less on the protocol
and more on what you're interested in saving. All digital archives will
have to be migrated between not only physical media but also between
access mechanisms.
20 years from now we'll all be sitting around on Vulcan-Mind-Meld-AOL
talking about the Internet and HTTP the same way we talk about 20mA current
loop today :-).
Tim.
13 Mar
13 Mar
12:18 a.m.
On 3/10/07, Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that ftp search services like
archie seem to
have disappeared, that the content on ftp sites isn't indexed by
google very well and that large software archives seem to be
disappearing?
Try searching for old copies of fractint and they are hard to find,
even though they were everywhere as recently as 10 years ago.
What's happened to FTP?
FTP has been deprecated. HTTP is a much better protocol for file
transfers, apart from things that should never be done during transfer
like CR<>CRLF or character set swaps. But that's the minor problem.
The major problem is that the old FTP archives turned into business
opportunities. The old military and university sites were
predominatly transferred to .coms that thought they could somehow make
a profit on them. Of course most of them didn't, and so they folded
or got gobbled up.
The ones that did figure out a way to profit turned towards providing
non-free software at the top of the list. A lot of the old stuff is
out there at the some of these sites, but you'll have to wade through
15 pages of Windows payware and shareware before you'll find it.
Should we be working to archive large FTP software
repositories?
Yes, if it's not too late.
Eric
12:53 a.m.
Eric wrote....
FTP has been deprecated. HTTP is a much better
protocol for file
transfers
I beg to differ. HTTP doesn't strike me as a protocol that is well
designed
for general purpose binary file transfer.
But more to the point, I don't see ftp as being deprecated. Far from it. It
seems to be quite alive and well in the areas I frequent.
Jay
1:11 a.m.
FTP has been
deprecated. HTTP is a much better protocol for file
transfers
I beg to differ. HTTP doesn't strike me as a protocol that is well
designed
for general purpose binary file transfer.
2:40 a.m.
At 11:53 PM -0500 3/12/07, Jay West wrote:
Eric wrote....
Ditto, in the OpenVMS world FTP is the only good way to obtain your
patches. FTP retains the file attributes while http doesn't, that
is very bad with VMS files.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
FTP has been deprecated. HTTP is a much better
protocol for file
transfers
I beg to differ. HTTP doesn't strike me as a protocol that is well
designed for general purpose binary file transfer.
But more to the point, I don't see ftp as being deprecated. Far from
it. It seems to be quite alive and well in the areas I frequent. 
10:34 a.m.
Eric J Korpela wrote:
Most HTTP tools seem terrible at supporting restarts (resuming interrupted
transfers) as compared to FTP tools, though.
The only irritating thing I've noticed is that FTP seems consistently slower
than HTTP for transfers. I'm not sure if that's down to the protocol,
deliberate throttling by server admins, or simply that HTTP servers tend to
have more hardware thrown at them than FTP.
What's
happened to FTP?
FTP has been deprecated. HTTP is a much better protocol for file
transfers, apart from things that should never be done during transfer
like CR<>CRLF or character set swaps.
11:57 a.m.
> FTP has been deprecated.
By whom? Since when?
> HTTP is a much better protocol for file transfers,
apart from things
> that should never be done during transfer like CR<>CRLF or character
> set swaps.
Say what? I don't know what you've been smoking, but it's obviously
the good stuff.
Line ending conversion and character set conversion are *exactly* the
sort of things that need doing upon file transfer between heterogenous
systems. One of FTP's major advantages is that it is prepared to
handle such things.
More generally, it was designed for file transfer rather than hypertext
transport (as reflected in the protocol names), and, oddly enough, it
works better for the purpose, including things like restarts and
preservation of file structure more complicated than "big array of
octets" or "big array of lines of text".
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
12:48 p.m.
der Mouse wrote:
Line ending conversion and character set conversion
are *exactly* the
sort of things that need doing upon file transfer between heterogenous
systems. One of FTP's major advantages is that it is prepared to
handle such things.
Hmm, personally I'm not convinced, purely because every single FTP
implementation can't hope to cover every possible conversion that every person
will ever want done :-)
In situations like that I think I'd rather it dictate that people *always*
have to do appropriate conversions locally, rather than a "sometimes you
might, sometimes you might not" policy.
More generally, it was designed for file transfer
rather than hypertext
transport (as reflected in the protocol names), and, oddly enough, it
works better for the purpose, including things like restarts and
preservation of file structure more complicated than "big array of
octets" or "big array of lines of text".
I'd certainly agree there. Whoever decided that HTTP should be hacked into a
more general-purpose transport protocol needs hitting around the head with an
exceedingly large fish. The 'net as a whole is a far worse place because of it
I think.
12:16 p.m.
Jules Richardson wrote:
The only irritating thing I've noticed is that FTP
seems consistently
slower than HTTP for transfers. I'm not sure if that's down to the
protocol, deliberate throttling by server admins, or simply that HTTP
servers tend to have more hardware thrown at them than FTP.
FTP adds an additional layer of checking (that TCP/IP already provides,
so I've never understood why its there), so that might be one reason.
But a better reason is that HTTP in today's world is used for streaming,
and is also simpler to firewall. FTP, especially active mode, requires
state tables and a tiny bit of thinking to handle properly across most
firewalls, so a loaded FTP server behind a firewall will be slower than
a loaded HTTP server behind a firewall.
I'm very surprised by all the anti-FTP discussion, including security.
If it's an anonymous /pub archive of stuff to distribute, there is no
better solution than FTP. Bittorrent is only useful for files for which
there are multiple requesters at the same time (like weekly snapshots of
large kernel source trees or something). Bittorrent gains you *nothing*
for onesy-twosey requests; in fact, it's much more of a PITA to set up.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
12:41 p.m.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Jim Leonard wrote:
Jules Richardson wrote:
I vote we dispense with both, set up an FTAM responder, build an OSI
network, and bury this pesky Internet.
Andrew
The only irritating thing I've noticed is
that FTP seems consistently
slower than HTTP for transfers. I'm not sure if that's down to the
protocol, deliberate throttling by server admins, or simply that HTTP
servers tend to have more hardware thrown at them than FTP.
FTP adds an additional layer of checking (that TCP/IP already provides, so
I've never understood why its there), so that might be one reason. But a
better reason is that HTTP in today's world is used for streaming, and is
also simpler to firewall. FTP, especially active mode, requires state tables
and a tiny bit of thinking to handle properly across most firewalls, so a
loaded FTP server behind a firewall will be slower than a loaded HTTP server
behind a firewall.
I'm very surprised by all the anti-FTP discussion, including security. If
it's an anonymous /pub archive of stuff to distribute, there is no better
solution than FTP. Bittorrent is only useful for files for which there are
multiple requesters at the same time (like weekly snapshots of large kernel
source trees or something). Bittorrent gains you *nothing* for onesy-twosey
requests; in fact, it's much more of a PITA to set up. 
3:40 p.m.
Andrew Back wrote:
I vote we dispense with both, set up an FTAM
responder, build an OSI
network, and bury this pesky Internet.
HEPNET was an OSI network at one point wasn't it?
DEC missed the boat on burying this pesky Internet (or at least
the TCP/IP on which it rests) so you'll have to just put
up with it for the forseeable future!
Antonio
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.10/720 - Release Date:
12/03/2007 19:19
4:41 p.m.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, arcarlini at iee.org wrote:
Andrew Back wrote:
Well it wouldn't be a replacement as such, but I was thinking of setting
up a L2 peer-to-peer network on top of said pesky network, so we folks
with VMS can run DECnet and the likes and use VMSmail and 'set host' etc.
I've set this up between my house and workshop using ethernet-over-ip via
two OpenBSD routers. And just recently discovered a Linux tool called
uvlan that looks like it would do a similar job and require much less
config.
The thing putting me off setting up some kind of peering point is that I
only have ADSL connections. But then ye olde VAXen would have had 9.6K
links in places. Although I guess if literally bridging ethernet
between sites would need to be careful of broadcasts. I also need to
get to grips with OSI / DECnet Phase V area routing.
Would be nice to be able to play around with this stuff though, and
properly use the X.400 MTA & X.500 DSA you get licensed via OpenVMS
Hobbyist.
Andrew
I vote we dispense with both, set up an FTAM
responder, build an OSI
network, and bury this pesky Internet.
HEPNET was an OSI network at one point wasn't it?
DEC missed the boat on burying this pesky Internet (or at least
the TCP/IP on which it rests) so you'll have to just put
up with it for the forseeable future! Antonio
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.10/720 - Release Date:
12/03/2007 19:19
4:55 p.m.
Andrew Back wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, arcarlini at iee.org wrote:
Check out what the Hobby Decnet bunch are doing.
http://www.update.uu.se/~bqt/hecnet.html
Andrew Back wrote:
Well it wouldn't be a replacement as such, but I was thinking of setting
up a L2 peer-to-peer network on top of said pesky network, so we folks
with VMS can run DECnet and the likes and use VMSmail and 'set host' etc.
I've set this up between my house and workshop using ethernet-over-ip via
two OpenBSD routers. And just recently discovered a Linux tool called
uvlan that looks like it would do a similar job and require much less
config.
I vote we dispense with both, set up an FTAM
responder, build an OSI
network, and bury this pesky Internet.
HEPNET was an OSI network at one point wasn't it?
DEC missed the boat on burying this pesky Internet (or at least
the TCP/IP on which it rests) so you'll have to just put
up with it for the forseeable future! The thing putting me off setting up some kind of
peering point is that I
only have ADSL connections. But then ye olde VAXen would have had 9.6K
links in places. Although I guess if literally bridging ethernet
between sites would need to be careful of broadcasts. I also need to
get to grips with OSI / DECnet Phase V area routing.
Would be nice to be able to play around with this stuff though, and
properly use the X.400 MTA & X.500 DSA you get licensed via OpenVMS
Hobbyist.
Andrew
> Antonio
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.10/720 - Release Date:
> 12/03/2007 19:19
>
>
>
14 Mar
14 Mar
3:44 a.m.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, John C. Ellingboe wrote:
Andrew Back wrote:
Thanks, was totally unaware of this. I was thinking of DECnet Phase V so
you could support ISO apps like X.500, X.400, FTAM & VT. Some people there
might be interested in this also though, so will get in touch.
Andrew
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, arcarlini at iee.org wrote:
Check out what the Hobby Decnet bunch are doing.
http://www.update.uu.se/~bqt/hecnet.html Andrew Back wrote:
Well it wouldn't be a replacement as such, but I was thinking of setting
up a L2 peer-to-peer network on top of said pesky network, so we folks
with VMS can run DECnet and the likes and use VMSmail and 'set host' etc.
I've set this up between my house and workshop using ethernet-over-ip via
two OpenBSD routers. And just recently discovered a Linux tool called
uvlan that looks like it would do a similar job and require much less
config.
I vote we dispense with both, set up an FTAM
responder, build an OSI
network, and bury this pesky Internet.
HEPNET was an OSI network at one point wasn't it?
DEC missed the boat on burying this pesky Internet (or at least
the TCP/IP on which it rests) so you'll have to just put
up with it for the forseeable future!
13 Mar
13 Mar
7:50 p.m.
Andrew Back wrote:
Well it wouldn't be a replacement as such, but I
was thinking of
setting up a L2 peer-to-peer network on top of said pesky network, so
we folks with VMS can run DECnet and the likes and use VMSmail and
'set host' etc. I've set this up between my house and workshop using
ethernet-over-ip via two OpenBSD routers. And just recently
discovered a Linux tool called uvlan that looks like it would do a
similar job and require much less config.
If you are running DECnet-Plus (i.e. DECnet/OSI) then you can use IP
as a transport layer, so you won't need to do any funny ethernet-over
-IP stuff. (This is just like doing RFC 1006).
If you are running the Multinet IP stack then it can tunnel DECnet
(Phase IV).
At least I _think_ it is Multinet that can do that (certainly one of the
3rd party ones can).
Or, within your own site/home, you could just run a pair of real
routers that can handle DECnet-Plus!
That all being said, VMSmail can certainly send and receive over
IP (and X.25 and anything else you care to write a mail transport for).
As for X.400, I think my first "critical" bug fix involved MRX, although
the details are currently lost in my notebooks. So I think that's enough
Mailbus to last me a lifetime!
Antonio
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.10/720 - Release Date:
12/03/2007 19:19
14 Mar
14 Mar
3:07 a.m.
At 11:50 PM +0000 3/13/07, <arcarlini at iee.org> wrote:
If you are running DECnet-Plus (i.e. DECnet/OSI) then
you can use IP
as a transport layer, so you won't need to do any funny ethernet-over
-IP stuff. (This is just like doing RFC 1006).
To the best of my knowledge no one has this going on HECnet, so it's
going to be hard to find someone to talk to.
If you are running the Multinet IP stack then it can
tunnel DECnet
(Phase IV).
At least I _think_ it is Multinet that can do that (certainly one of the
3rd party ones can).
Yes, Multinet is what I use, which reminds me.... My area router is down...
OK, that was more fun than expected, but now that it's up, the
following link shows what nodes are currently online. Be warned it
takes a couple minutes to update.
http://www.avanthar.com:8080/nodes/
One of these days I'm going to rewrite this so that it periodically
polls and puts the info in a database. That way I can speed up the
page access.
Or, within your own site/home, you could just run a
pair of real
routers that can handle DECnet-Plus!
At least one or two people on HECnet are using this for links.
The majority though I think are using Johnny's link software.
http://www.update.uu.se/~bqt/hecnet.html
That all being said, VMSmail can certainly send and
receive over
IP (and X.25 and anything else you care to write a mail transport for).
I should hope it can send and receive over IP or else I'm doing
something strange :^) I get a lot of my email direct to my VMS box,
and only a couple messages have come to it via DECnet (HECnet).
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
3:55 a.m.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, arcarlini at iee.org wrote:
Andrew Back wrote:
But where is the fun in RFC1006? Would prefer to have native ISO CONS
running direct atop layer 2 on the LAN rather than on top of IP. So you
kinda have a real native network, and can play around with ISO routing.
Or, are you saying you can configure IS-IS connections to tunnel via IP
and have your ES-IS native ethernet?
Well it wouldn't be a replacement as such,
but I was thinking of
setting up a L2 peer-to-peer network on top of said pesky network, so
we folks with VMS can run DECnet and the likes and use VMSmail and
'set host' etc. I've set this up between my house and workshop using
ethernet-over-ip via two OpenBSD routers. And just recently
discovered a Linux tool called uvlan that looks like it would do a
similar job and require much less config.
If you are running DECnet-Plus (i.e. DECnet/OSI) then you can use IP
as a transport layer, so you won't need to do any funny ethernet-over
-IP stuff. (This is just like doing RFC 1006). If you are running the Multinet IP stack then it can
tunnel DECnet
(Phase IV).
At least I _think_ it is Multinet that can do that (certainly one of the
3rd party ones can).
Or, within your own site/home, you could just run a pair of real
routers that can handle DECnet-Plus!
Well that would be nice...
That all being said, VMSmail can certainly send and
receive over
IP (and X.25 and anything else you care to write a mail transport for).
Right, forgot VMSmail could use IP direct. Would be more fun it using an
X.400 gateway and then X.400 MIXER gateway to get out to the Internet, and
storing all the routing and address translation in X.500.
As for X.400, I think my first "critical"
bug fix involved MRX, although
the details are currently lost in my notebooks. So I think that's enough
Mailbus to last me a lifetime!
Hmm, I can imagine that must have been fun. Just using X.400 can be a
steep-ish learning curve, and peering to another vendor's MTA
'interesting', especially if in some other ADMD you don't control and
across over a public PSDN... Still, I think these systems and associated
protocols also need preserving and using, and can be fun :o)
Andrew
4:21 a.m.
Andrew Back wrote:
But where is the fun in RFC1006? Would prefer to have
native ISO CONS
running direct atop layer 2 on the LAN rather than on top of IP. So
you kinda have a real native network, and can play around with ISO
routing. Or, are you saying you can configure IS-IS connections to
tunnel via IP and have your ES-IS native ethernet?
Given the right equipment it's easy to configure a proper Phase V
network.
I don't think Routing ever made it onto OpenVMS VAX but I do think it
made it into OpenVMS Alpha. Not sure about Digital Unix though.
Then again WR90s and Routeabouts are common enough. If you
like bigger, noiser hardware then DEMSA and DECnis are for you!
Right, forgot VMSmail could use IP direct. Would be
more fun it using
I forgot that the Message Router stuff (including MRX) also provided
a VMSmail transport.
an X.400 gateway and then X.400 MIXER gateway to get
out to the
Internet, and storing all the routing and address translation in
X.500.
I think the very first time I used X.400 was configuring it as a
customer.
Hmm, I can imagine that must have been fun. Just using
X.400 can be a
steep-ish learning curve, and peering to another vendor's MTA
'interesting', especially if in some other ADMD you don't control and
across over a public PSDN...
My recollection (as a customer) was that either you were trying to peer
9as I was) to BT Gold, and they spoke a different language; or you were
trying to peer to someone else who also didn't know what they doing
(and spoke a different language) :-)
Still, I think these
systems and
associated protocols also need preserving and using, and can be fun
:o)
Even without additional hardware you can set up X.25 over LLC2 (ISO8889
IIRC) and pretend you have two systems separated by a PSDN. Then you
can get MRX running on each of them. I currently have PSI on my
VAXstation
set up that way, although the other end (another VAXstation) is
currently
powered off.
Antonio
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.10/720 - Release Date:
12/03/2007 19:19
7:01 a.m.
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, arcarlini at iee.org wrote:
Mmmm, message router. Need to have ALL-IN-ONE set up too :o)
Andrew Back wrote:
> But where is the fun in RFC1006? Would prefer to have native ISO CONS
> running direct atop layer 2 on the LAN rather than on top of IP. So
> you kinda have a real native network, and can play around with ISO
> routing. Or, are you saying you can configure IS-IS connections to
> tunnel via IP and have your ES-IS native ethernet?
I think I meant CLNS and not CONS, much as I love X.25
Given the right equipment it's easy to configure a
proper Phase V
network.
I don't think Routing ever made it onto OpenVMS VAX but I do think it
made it into OpenVMS Alpha. Not sure about Digital Unix though.
Then again WR90s and Routeabouts are common enough. If you
like bigger, noiser hardware then DEMSA and DECnis are for you!
I know it's on Alpha 7.3-2, not check VAX 7.3 yet.
Right, forgot
VMSmail could use IP direct. Would be more fun it using
I forgot that the Message Router stuff (including MRX) also provided
a VMSmail transport. My recollection (as a customer) was that either you
were trying to peer
9as I was) to BT Gold, and they spoke a different language; or you were
trying to peer to someone else who also didn't know what they doing
(and spoke a different language) :-)
I've peered to BT Gold twice: once from Mailbus400, to replace an
unreliable X.400 (1984) MR gateway based on some EOL DEC software (inc DDS
- pre X.500 directory), and the second time using commercial Isode MTA.
Although I also encountered the second problem you mentioned when I worked
at boo.com doing EDI stuff and had to get FTAM on Solaris talking to a
Deutsche Bank responder in Germany running on god-knows-what, via PSDN. I
remember it involved lots of ISO traces, and X.25 traces and calls to BT
and countless teams in DB.
Even without additional hardware you can set up X.25
over LLC2 (ISO8889
IIRC) and pretend you have two systems separated by a PSDN. Then you
can get MRX running on each of them. I currently have PSI on my
VAXstation
set up that way, although the other end (another VAXstation) is
currently
powered off.
Nice idea :o)
Andrew
12:40 p.m.
New subject: ALL-IN-ONE (was: ftp archives disappearing?)
At 11:01 AM +0000 3/14/07, Andrew Back wrote:
Mmmm, message router. Need to have ALL-IN-ONE set up
too :o)
Warning, if you're serious, you might have an interesting time
getting ALL-IN-ONE installed on a modern system (at least 7.3 or
newer). I suspect you can do it, but that it will require reworking
the installation.
Does anyone happen to know how well it works on something like V8.3,
and if it is possible to install on a current version of the OS?
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
4:43 p.m.
New subject: ALL-IN-ONE (was: ftp archives disappearing?)
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Zane H. Healy wrote:
At 11:01 AM +0000 3/14/07, Andrew Back wrote:
When I worked on VMS, MR and Mailbus etc we had a whole team that
developed ALL-IN-ONE customisations for the company. So after you'd
installed A1 and the myriad of stuff it needed you install the
customisation packages that added bespoke screens and linked it all
together (inc Wordperfect and Lotus 1-2-3 integration IIRC). Must admit
I've never seen a default install.
Andrew
Mmmm, message router. Need to have ALL-IN-ONE set
up too :o)
Warning, if you're serious, you might have an interesting time getting
ALL-IN-ONE installed on a modern system (at least 7.3 or newer). I suspect
you can do it, but that it will require reworking the installation. 
3:46 a.m.
On Mar 13, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Andrew Back wrote:
Well it wouldn't be a replacement as such, but I was thinking of
setting up a L2 peer-to-peer network on top of said pesky network,
so we folks with VMS can run DECnet and the likes and use VMSmail
and 'set host' etc.
It already exists. See:
http://www.update.uu.se/~bqt/hecnet.html
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
I vote we dispense with both, set up an FTAM
responder, build an OSI
network, and bury this pesky Internet.
HEPNET was an OSI network at one point wasn't it?
DEC missed the boat on burying this pesky Internet (or at least
the TCP/IP on which it rests) so you'll have to just put
up with it for the forseeable future! 
13 Mar
13 Mar
10:56 p.m.
Andrew Back wrote:
I vote we dispense with both, set up an FTAM
responder, build an OSI
network, and bury this pesky Internet.
arcarlini at iee.org wrote:
DEC missed the boat on burying this pesky Internet (or
at least
the TCP/IP on which it rests) so you'll have to just put
up with it for the forseeable future!
Ohhh noooo ... OSI and X.400 ... For a good portion of the 80's I worked on a
project developing an X.400 mail system & OSI stack. X.400 received a lot of
attention back then as it was supposed to be (or become) the international
standard for email transfer. I was out of that by the late 80's when the
Internet was 'opened' and rolled over everything. I now think of that period
as the era of the protocol wars.
arcarlini at iee.org wrote:
HEPNET was an OSI network at one point wasn't it?
In the mid 80's I think it was mostly DECNET and SNA, reflecting the
machines/systems installed at the participating organisations. Some of those
orgs/nodes used our X.400 system, so there was some OSI in there. I have no idea
what happened after 1988 or so, though, although I wouldn't be surprised if they
always had it in mind to migrate to international standards.
Andrew Back wrote:
Would be nice to be able to play around with this stuff
though, and
properly use the X.400 MTA & X.500 DSA you get licensed via OpenVMS
Hobbyist.
On a similar note to Francesca's message about one's old data turning up years
later, a little while ago I asked a friend working at a local university if
they had any 9-track tapes still kicking around as I could use some
spares/scratch tapes. He took me to a storage room filled with a several
shelves of them and said take your choice. Looking over the reels I saw a
distribution tape from 1987 for the X.400 system I worked on, complete with
source code. (There were also some BSD unix dists from the 80's in there.)
So if I ever get a system to read the tape and run the X.400 system, and if
there is a common network level to agree on we could do some old-school
international-standard email networking ... <pause> ... on the other hand I'm
not entirely sure I want to go (back) there.
14 Mar
14 Mar
4:33 p.m.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Brent Hilpert wrote:
<<SNIP>>
Ohhh noooo ... OSI and X.400 ... For a good portion of
the 80's I worked on a
project developing an X.400 mail system & OSI stack. X.400 received a lot of
attention back then as it was supposed to be (or become) the international
standard for email transfer. I was out of that by the late 80's when the
Internet was 'opened' and rolled over everything. I now think of that period
as the era of the protocol wars.
Well, X.400 still gets used in certain applications. I think the UK
military use it a lot, and gets used for transporting EDI messages between
in supply chain stuff. Also the basis for the Air Traffic Services (ATS)
Message Handling Services used in ground-ground comms between airports to
exchange flight plans etc. This is new, actively developed and not legacy.
arcarlini at iee.org wrote:
Commercial implementations of X.500 still being developed. It's just that
they play down the X.500 bit due to the stigma attached and position their
products more as top end LDAP with standards based shadowing, chaining and
access control etc.
HEPNET was an OSI network at one point wasn't
it?
In the mid 80's I think it was mostly DECNET and SNA, reflecting the
machines/systems installed at the participating organisations. Some of those
orgs/nodes used our X.400 system, so there was some OSI in there. I have no idea
what happened after 1988 or so, though, although I wouldn't be surprised if they
always had it in mind to migrate to international standards.
Andrew Back wrote:
Cool. That would be good as the only other implementation generally
avilable is an old ISO-DE release. Do it :o)
Andrew
Would be nice to be able to play around with this
stuff though, and
properly use the X.400 MTA & X.500 DSA you get licensed via OpenVMS
Hobbyist.
On a similar note to Francesca's message about one's old data turning up years
later, a little while ago I asked a friend working at a local university if
they had any 9-track tapes still kicking around as I could use some
spares/scratch tapes. He took me to a storage room filled with a several
shelves of them and said take your choice. Looking over the reels I saw a
distribution tape from 1987 for the X.400 system I worked on, complete with
source code. (There were also some BSD unix dists from the 80's in there.)
So if I ever get a system to read the tape and run the X.400 system, and if
there is a common network level to agree on we could do some old-school
international-standard email networking ... <pause> ... on the other hand I'm
not entirely sure I want to go (back) there.
15 Mar
15 Mar
3:47 p.m.
New subject: X.400 / was Re: ftp archives disappearing?
Andrew Back wrote:
Well, X.400 still gets used in certain applications. I think the UK
military use it a lot, and gets used for transporting EDI messages between
in supply chain stuff. Also the basis for the Air Traffic Services (ATS)
Message Handling Services used in ground-ground comms between airports to
exchange flight plans etc. This is new, actively developed and not legacy.
Interesting, I had no idea .. thought everything X.400 was buried in dust by now.
FWIW, the project I worked on was the first X.400 implementation. We were
'on the air' in 1983 or 84. There was a near-simultaneous completely independant
development at (IIRC) KDD in Japan (an R&D arm of NTT) and in 1984 we successfully
transferred messages between the two systems (X.25 network layer) with a
minimum of fixing required.
Our system received a lot of attention in Europe as they were focussed on
international standard protocols at that time. I saw a presentation in Italy
in 1987 from DEC about their just- (or about-to-be-) released X.400 system.
There was some consideration (or at least lip-service) in that era being given
to changing the mail transfer protocol on the Internet to X.400.
In 1987 I was asked on short notice to attend an Internet meeting/conference at
Stanford to speak on our experience with X.400. Maybe if I had given a better
presentation we'd all be using X.400 now instead of SMTP.
13 Mar
13 Mar
2:03 p.m.
On Mar 13, 2007, at 12:18 AM, Eric J Korpela wrote:
By you, perhaps. Certainly not by many others.
Has anyone
else noticed that ftp search services like archie seem to
have disappeared, that the content on ftp sites isn't indexed by
google very well and that large software archives seem to be
disappearing?
Try searching for old copies of fractint and they are hard to find,
even though they were everywhere as recently as 10 years ago.
What's happened to FTP?
FTP has been deprecated. HTTP is a much better protocol for file transfers,
...in SOME situations, not all.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
6334
days inactive
6339
days old
36 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
andy＠smokebelch.org -
arcarlini＠iee.org -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
hilpert＠cs.ubc.ca -
john＠guntersville.net -
jrr＠flippers.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
jwstephens＠msm.umr.edu -
korpela＠ssl.berkeley.edu -
legalize＠xmission.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
shoppa_classiccmp＠trailing-edge.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org