karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (02/07/89)
iahg0490@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
Does anyone know if it is possible to send email to users of the commercial
computer services, such as CompuServe, from internet?
(*exasperated sigh*)
CompuServe: There is not, but there will be Real Soon Now. Yes, I
know, it's been delayed and delayed and delayed. Tell me about it,
folks - we've been fitfully hammering on the CServe folks to get their
end of the beastie finished, and I had hoped we'd get it done before
the end of January, but alas it didn't come to pass. I'm hoping to
get them to finish dealing with it by the end of next week. We are
very, very close - but don't hold your breath. Nameservers for
compuserve.com have been alive since late September and pathalias data
was published at that time as well, so whenever it is finished it can
go to work immediately. Please do NOT "try it out" or "test" it at
this time - there is a (somewhat unreliable) heuristic in the current
alpha gateway which prevents mail from passing not between CServe and
Ohio State, and if you manage to fool it and get through (a couple of
people have, and my level of tolerance for such shenanigans is
dropping *really* fast), you'll seriously irritate some people inside
CServe. I'll also guarantee unconditionally that CServe users
*cannot* get back out right now without knowing some deliberately
obscure magic cookies, and the people who know them know not to
advertise what they are.
Others: Rick Adams mentioned at the UUNET/Usenet BOF last week at
Usenix that he is working on getting some of the other commercial
providers to gateway through UUNET. In large part, he is running into
parochial attitudes demanding X.400 mailers, which he doesn't run. He
did mention that he has recently had surprising success in discussions
with (I think) Genie, where both his side and the other will provide
some simple headers for each other.
--Karl Kleinpaste
acting postmaster@compuserve.comkarl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (02/08/89)
gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders) writes:
NO, not really, you cant send to compuserve from a internet site.
Give me 2 weeks. Really. I hope.
I have
heard someone set up a gateway and was charging for the gateway service, but
CI$ was not to happy with it, so it was stopped.
News to me. Probably a defunct concept from some time back. My
effort has CServe support. And they'd darn well better *not* charge
for use of it.
I did however see that
compuserve now has a unix machine and is listed in the maps.
No. They have neither UNIX machines accessible, nor UUCP at all. The
host called `compuserve' which I registered in the maps last fall is
an apparent UUCP connection with Loquat, my 3B2/400, whose spool
directory is subsumed periodically by the gateway functions.jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) (02/08/89)
In article <KARL.89Feb7090020@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >Others: Rick Adams mentioned at the UUNET/Usenet BOF last week at >Usenix that he is working on getting some of the other commercial >providers to gateway through UUNET. In large part, he is running into >parochial attitudes demanding X.400 mailers, which he doesn't run. He Pardon? It is parochial to demand the use of the international standard?
rob@violet.berkeley.edu (Rob Robertson) (02/11/89)
In article <1354@etive.ed.ac.uk> jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) writes: >In article <KARL.89Feb7090020@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu> >>In large part, he is running into >>parochial attitudes demanding X.400 mailers, which he doesn't run. He > >Pardon? It is parochial to demand the use of the international >standard? X.400?? The joke European Phone Monopolies are trying to pull on us*? It was nice of them to spend the time, but before "standards bodies" get together, it would be a good idea to look what's out there, see what is needed, and plan for what is doable. rob ------------- * us being those that have working email systems. william robertson rob@violet.berkeley.edu
moore@cygnusx1.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) (02/11/89)
In article <1354@etive.ed.ac.uk> jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) writes: =In article <KARL.89Feb7090020@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu> =karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: = =>Others: Rick Adams mentioned at the UUNET/Usenet BOF last week at =>Usenix that he is working on getting some of the other commercial =>providers to gateway through UUNET. In large part, he is running into =>parochial attitudes demanding X.400 mailers, which he doesn't run. He = =Pardon? It is parochial to demand the use of the international =standard? Yes. UUNET doesn't do X.400 mail. Neither do most of the systems with which UUNET exchanges mail. Every time you have to translate a message from one format to another, you lose information and induce errors. It doesn't make sense for a ``commercial provider'' to insist on an additional layer of translation on every message that passes through its gateway to the rest of the world. If the provider already uses some subset of X.400 (and I suspect that most of those in the U.S. do not), then the translation (to, say, RFC822) is better done by the provider than by UUNET, because the provider is more aware of the particulars of its implementation. -- Keith Moore UT Computer Science Dept. Internet/CSnet: moore@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu 107 Ayres Hall, UT Campus BITNET: moore@utkvx Knoxville Tennessee 37996-1301 Telephone: +1 615 974 0822
ulmo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Brad Allen) (02/11/89)
> >>parochial attitudes demanding X.400 mailers, which he doesn't run. He > >Pardon? It is parochial to demand the use of the international standard? > X.400?? The joke European Phone Monopolies are trying to pull on us*? I'm not sure, but does X.400 include the capability to track billing? If so, there would be a somewhat obvious reason to run X.400 for commercial mailers rather than a protocol which cannot handle this. Also, it >is< rather prudent and all that to suggest an international standard given that many places don't support the Internet currently, and really can't believe that something such as the Internet has gone on for 20 years ... also, security issues (as if X.400 is inherently better??). However, don't get me wrong: my first reaction, carried out, was to mail a tiny flame to the UK person who posted that thing. Ahh, the wonders of electronic email. (I want my Tb/s home fiber now!)