Date: Mon, 23 Sep 96 00:06:32 PDT From: Snuffles@kew.com Subject: UUPC-Info-Request Digest 1996 #19 To: uupc-info-digest@kew.com Message-ID: Reply-To: UUPC-Info-Request@kew.com UUPC-Info-Request Digest Mon, 23 Sep 96 Volume 1996: Issue 19 Today's Topics: "bang" paths in mail header (2 msgs) Change the text for bouncing messages COM 7 supported? Fossil at 115200 baud.. Gateway solution MS Exchange <--> UUCP (2 msgs) How about these stats ? (3 msgs) outline needed: uupc to external mail server (2 msgs) Problems? 1.12s? (2 msgs) q's reason to upgrade from 1.12k? UUPC/extended good as a SMTP to UUCP gateway? (2 msgs) what OS/2 UUCICO for sync PPP over ISDN? To subscribe to UUPC-Info-Digest, send the command in the body of a message to listserv@kew.com: subscribe uupc-info-Digest To signoff from UUPC-Info-Digest, use "signoff" instead of "subscribe". You can also send an "index" to the listserv to get an index of back issues and other files available for retrieval. Note: Questions on UUPC/extended itself which are not of general interest should be sent to help@kew.com, not to the mailing list. Nor questions should be posted on Usenet, we don't read it. (Much.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 08:56:04 -0500 From: alarie@ibm.net Subject: "bang" paths in mail header To: UUPC/Extended mailing list I've been advised by an ISP that the "bang" paths in the From (not "From:") line of the outgoing mail header may cause problems for some mailers. Is an alternative format possible and if so, how/where is it controlled? Is the ISP full of beans? -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Regards, Dave Alarie ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:55:07 -0600 From: ccole@star-net.mn.org Subject: "bang" paths in mail header To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On 16 Sep 96 at 8:56, alarie@ibm.net wrote: > I've been advised by an ISP that the "bang" paths in the From (not > "From:") line of the outgoing mail header may cause problems for some > mailers. Your problem MIGHT be the same as I experience, but it might not be fixable in UUPC or at your node... my version of this problem resides at the list server location, but it might be aggravated by UUPC behavior. > Is an alternative format possible and if so, how/where is it controlled? That's one for Drew.. I'm not sure whether this is relevant for UUPC: the problem I actually have may be a list server problem, or a setup problem in some list servers. > Is the ISP full of beans? NO! Some mailing list servers grab a "from" as your registration ID, and NOT your "smart address". Later, your server may alter which node on their LAN your link resides upon, and thereby change your subsequent "from" as seen elsewhere. Result is that your calls no longer bear the same caller address part of the security ID, so you cannot alter or delete that registration. I may not have enough case samples to judge, but I'll share my guesses: Majordomo does NOT seem to have this sensitivity because it shows my subscription addresses as "smart" via the REVIEW command. OTOH, the Listserver by the Greek fellow shows my bang path addresses via the REVIEW command and DOES have the access problem. The fact that I can locate a command to alter my subscription address to show a "smart address" vis REVIEW does not get around the essential problem, because my incoming ID is still interpreted via the bang path. I don't have enough feedback or insight from list managers, so my synopsis may be flawed... my access problem is real, and relates to bang paths that my server changed in ways outside my cognizance and control. -- Chuck Cole St Paul, MN ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 23:41:13 +0800 (SGT) From: tulpen@pacific.net.sg Subject: Change the text for bouncing messages To: UUPC/Extended mailing list >On Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:16:39 +0000, THOMAS@aac.nl wrote: >> Is it possible to change the text that is sent to users that the mail >> is bounced for? >> >> I don't want this part displayed: >> >> "Invalid local address (not defined in PASSWD or ALIASES)." >> >> Also i want to add some general adresses people can send mail to... > >No, it cannot be changed, all the error messages are hard coded. I am >open to be a better phrasing, I will not be customizing it. > >In general ANY problems with mail should be directed to the postmaster >at the local site, I'm open to adding a generic fixed message to this >effect. How about a minimal hardcoded sentence like "Invalid local address" and then have uupc.rc allow a pointer to a text file that would be appended at the end? Then postmasters could draft their own message. -terry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:19:15 -0600 From: ccole@star-net.mn.org Subject: COM 7 supported? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Can COM 7 be configured in UUPC modem files for DOS? That's port 3E8, IRQ 5 ie, COM 3 with IRQ5 The X00 fossil supports that easily. -- Chuck Cole St Paul, MN ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:25:05 -0600 From: ccole@star-net.mn.org Subject: Fossil at 115200 baud.. To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Is there a way to configure UUPC for a DTE speed of 115200 for a 28.8 modem? X00 does it well, but the UUPC MDM file quits at 57600, and SYSTEMS quits at 38400. Can one get the DTE locked at 115200 and get a connect report of current DCE speed in UUPC? -- Chuck Cole St Paul, MN ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 23:29:59 -0700 From: haraldba@MICROSOFT.com Subject: Gateway solution MS Exchange <--> UUCP To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, would you please send me informations about connecting MSMail and MS Exchange Server to UUCP? Are there any UUCP products running on Windows NT? Mit freundlichem Gru? aus Neuss / kind regards Harald Bardenhagen Microsoft Systemengineer for Mail and Exchange Microsoft GmbH RO Neuss Hammer Landstr. 89 41460 Neuss Tel.: +49-(0)-2131-708-0 Fax: +49-(0)-2131-708-100 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 21:12:45 +0200 From: G.A.H.TEEUWEN@stud.tue.nl Subject: Gateway solution MS Exchange <--> UUCP To: UUPC/Extended mailing list haraldba@MICROSOFT.com wrote: > > Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, > > would you please send me informations about connecting MSMail and MS > Exchange Server to UUCP? Are there any UUCP products running on Windows > NT? At the moment I'm trying to set-up UUCP or Windows v2.0 (WUU20.EXE), which should do the trick, a compleet list-up for Any-to-MS-mail/exchange gateways can be found on: http://www.mysite.com/hall/gateways.htm This is a list of commercial and shareware products. If you're inter- ested in a commercial product, the TenFour solutions get quite good responses. Should you find a better shareware/freeware solution please send me a personal message. Bye, Guido Teeuwen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 15:50:33 From: THOMAS@aac.nl Subject: How about these stats ? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hello All, I think our statistics are a bit low for a 28k8 dial up connection to our UUCP provider, here are our stats over the last month: Total bytes rec'd: 21,392,917 Total bytes xmit: 5,986,773 Total bytes: 27,379,690 Hours Hours AvCPS AvCPS # # # Recv Xmit Recv Xmit Recv Xmit Con ----- ----- ------ ------ ---- ---- --- 3.48 1.30 1708 1284 1262 544 426 I think the CPS rate must be at least 3000+ CPS because that is what i am used to on bbs environment :-), is there something i can change in the modem.mdm or systems file to gain cps rate ? I've tried to play with the protocols but i can't see any difference. Greetings, Thomas. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0000 From: hajo@quijote.in-berlin.de Subject: How about these stats ? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Thomas schrieb am 17.09.96: > Hours Hours AvCPS AvCPS # # # > Recv Xmit Recv Xmit Recv Xmit Con > ----- ----- ------ ------ ---- ---- --- > 3.48 1.30 1708 1284 1262 544 426 > > I think the CPS rate must be at least 3000+ CPS because that is what > i am used to on bbs environment :-), is there something i can change > in the modem.mdm or systems file to gain cps rate ? > > I've tried to play with the protocols but i can't see any difference. Protocols make a difference, problem is: The protocol that makes a difference is not there. This is called uucp-i. Uucp-i is not available in UUPC, because it is nearly impossible to do this under DOS. UUCP-i avoids the timelags between files, and is also bidirectional. But because up to 4 files must be handled at one time, DOS is not the ideal environment. Speed also needs batched and compressed mail. This is called gbsmtp, and not available at the moment, though somebody is working on it. With uucp-i and gbsmtp, net performance should be better or equal to a BBS environment. hajo -- ----[Hans-Joachim Zierke ]---------------------------------------------- [Rathenower Strasse 23 ] [D-10559 Berlin-Moabit] hajo@quijote.in-berlin.de [ +49-30 / 394 84 45] ----[Fax:(0)30 / 394 84 47]---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 13:41:56 +0000 From: eric@terra.xs4all.nl Subject: How about these stats ? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list >>>>> hajo writes: > Protocols make a difference, problem is: The protocol that makes a > difference is not there. This is called uucp-i. I agree that the i protocol could make a big difference, but that is not the solution to why he gets these low transferrates. I use the g protocol with a 14K4 modem, and my stats are quite a bit better. So there are two probable causes: 1. The 'g' protocol isn't correctly configured on his system 2. His providers has a problem > Uucp-i is not available in UUPC, because it is nearly impossible to > do this under DOS. I don't use DOS so I don't see why I can't be emplemneted in the OS/2 and NT versions. They should be able to handle that very well. > UUCP-i avoids the timelags between files, and is also > bidirectional. But because up to 4 files must be handled at one > time, DOS is not the ideal environment. So, just don't use DOS. > Speed also needs batched and compressed mail. This is called gbsmtp, > and not available at the moment, though somebody is working on it. That's not the real solution either. If you have a error correcting modem with compression (and as far as I know can all new modem dos that) you should get VERY good tranferrates on uncompressed mail messages. This because the modem on the other site wil compress it and you modem will decompress it. Tranferrates of about 5Kb/s on plain text on a 14K4 modem are not uncommon. Although it's true that you'll probably get more data over your line if you compress the mail with some other program before transmitting. But your port-transferrate can only drop if you compress it before transmitting. -- Eric Veldhuyzen TEAM OS/2 Eric.Veldhuyzen@si.hhs.nl CIS: [100010,3051] Eric@terra.xs4all.nl PGP-KeyID: 0xFB64FCB3 ********** FIGHT to keep your right to PRIVACY. Use PGP! ********** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 09:20:17 +0700 From: bp@butya.alma-ata.su Subject: outline needed: uupc to external mail server To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hello alarie@ibm.net ! On Tue, 10 Sep 96 23:29:13 alarie@ibm.net wrote to UUPC/Extended mailing list : ain> I've got a good connection to the ISP's UUCP server. The next step is ain> having UUPC deliver the mail as discrete files to the incoming directory ain> of an SMTP/POP3 server on the LAN, in this case Inet.Mail. Unfortunatly, rmail from UUPC/Extended does not allow putting mail into user directory as separate files. So, I'm using a little program that breaks user mail boxes to letters and writes them to user mail directory. -- // Boris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 96 20:07:54 -0500 From: alarie@ibm.net Subject: outline needed: uupc to external mail server To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On 09/10/96 at 11:29 PM, alarie@ibm.net said: >I've got a good connection to the ISP's UUCP server. The next step is >having UUPC deliver the mail as discrete files to the incoming directory >of an SMTP/POP3 server on the LAN, in this case Inet.Mail. >What's the basic outline for doing that? Just point to it and I'll work >it out. Thanks. Got it. Sorry to bug everyone. RTFM Dave. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Regards, Dave Alarie ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:42:45 -0400 From: MarchHare@mome.apk.net Subject: Problems? 1.12s? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list OK, firstly: Is 1.12s available? I saw a passing reference to it on the list. Secondly: What is the deal with Clarkson? Lynn's FTP just shows an empty folder (it worked in the past). Then, I got onto the web page and noticed that the path was different. However, I get "denied access" whenever I click on the links. Thirdly: Is anonymous UUCP on "kewgate" working? Is the number still 1-617-279-9816? I cannot connect to save my life. I seem to be able to connect everywhere else, though. The first time I tried it, I got frustrated and then brought up ZOC to manually login. Just my luck, the number was busy. I let it go for a week, but it never connected. Finally, last night I tried manually again. Three screens of garbage before I got disconnected. So, I am apparently without an index to get to and without a way to get one. John -- //------------------------------------------------------------------------ // momerath@apk.net sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT` // MarchHare@mome.apk.net ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD // ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA // .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA In case of stupidity, break glass. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:07:19 +1200 From: stephen@inisant.actrix.gen.nz Subject: Problems? 1.12s? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list ** Reply to note from MarchHare@mome.apk.net Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:42:45 -0400 > Is 1.12s available? It will be the next version probably - the version number gets incremented as soon as the previous one is released. > What is the deal with Clarkson? We no longer have access to Clarkson. > Is anonymous UUCP on "kewgate" working? I do not know about anonymous UUCP on kewgate, but ftp.kew.com *is* available. I am not sure what the bandwidth is (probably just a modem), but it worked fine for me recently. -- Stephen Worthington Telephone: +64-4-569-6764 (home) Digi-Tech Communications Ltd +64-4-389-8909 (work) stephen@digitech.co.nz (work) Fax: +64-4-389-9901 (work) stephen@inisant.actrix.gen.nz (home) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 22:35:37 From: udo@pulstar.xs4all.nl Subject: q's To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hoi! I noticed that uupc/2 1.12k puts the D.- and X.something files in the same (D) directory; I thought that each . file had it's own directory? What's the maximum command line length for the OS/2 UUPC utilities (rmail, uux, etc)? What's the limit for the combo of UUPC and 4OS/2? Can you recommend a good (but small/simple?) newsreader for UUPC and Warp? Groeten, Udo ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0000 From: hajo@quijote.in-berlin.de Subject: reason to upgrade from 1.12k? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list > Curious. There no changes between the two, but 1.12p is compiled with > MS C and 1.12k was released using the Borland compilers. Hmmh, at least r knows about more parameters. ;-) It very much looks like a timing problem. Other users reported, that they had to switch providers, to make UUPC work. It looks as if it does not like bad phone lines. My feed is sitting on old in-house analogs. It is still amazing, why UUPC should feel uncomfortable on top of LAPM error correction. I don't know what happens. The old DOS Crosspoint uucico, that I use for real work, did not show such problems in the last years. hajo -- ----[Hans-Joachim Zierke ]---------------------------------------------- [Rathenower Straße 23 ] [D-10559 Berlin-Moabit] hajo@quijote.in-berlin.de [ +49-30 / 394 84 45] ----[Fax:(0)30 / 394 84 47]---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 11:57:22 EST From: Russ_Lister@ccmailgw.cti.com Subject: UUPC/extended good as a SMTP to UUCP gateway? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list I've downloaded the software and while I'm reading through the hefty manual, I thought I would check with the list first to see if UUPC/extended will do what I need. My company has a private network that they use primarily for Novell file and print services, but it also supports TCP/IP and Microsoft protocols with an eye towards migrating to the two in the future. We use ccMail for Novell as our user email package and utilize a ccMail SMTP gateway package that passes outbound mail, via TCP/IP, to a Linux box that then passes it via UUCP to our ISP for world routing. This arrangement has worked well for the last 4 years, but I'm the only person left who speaks Unix and the Linux software is an old version (no upgrade since its installation). I figure it's better to just replace the Linux with something that I have a better chance of teaching others to maintain by narrowing the scope to just SMTP/UUCP, instead of all of Unix administration. So, the thrust of the question is; Is UUPC/extended suitable for acting as a SMTP to UUCP gateway for our email system? I don't expect to have anyone running the system as a personal machine, and I would like to utilize the forced address routing features in the event we decide in the future to migrate or support to other email services. Any suggestions are welcome. Russ Lister russ_lister@ccmailgw.cti.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 19:18:18 +0800 (SGT) From: tulpen@pacific.net.sg Subject: UUPC/extended good as a SMTP to UUCP gateway? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list >Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 11:57:22 EST >From: Russ_Lister@ccmailgw.cti.com > We use ccMail for Novell as our user email package and utilize a > ccMail SMTP gateway package that passes outbound mail, via TCP/IP, to > a Linux box that then passes it via UUCP to our ISP for world routing. > So, the thrust of the question is; Is UUPC/extended suitable for > acting as a SMTP to UUCP gateway for our email system? cc:Mail sells a slightly brain-damaged UUCP gateway (which is based on an old version of UUPC - 1.12b, I think) which may be worth looking into, if you basically want to send mail using cc:Mail via UUCP to your ISP. Pity having to pay for it, though, but at least it's hacked to fit cc:Mail. -terry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 16:15:32 From: udo@pulstar.xs4all.nl Subject: what OS/2 UUCICO for sync PPP over ISDN? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hoi! What UUCICO can I use best whEn a sync PPP connection is used? The TCP/IP version or the normal version combined with SIO's VMODEM? Does anyone have some experience with this kind of setup? Please email me! Groeten, Udo ------------------------------ End of UUPC-Info-Request Digest ******************************