brantley@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (brantley) (10/21/88)
Hi!
A friend and I are trying to reach a machine in London, and while
the address we are using doesn't bounce back, we aren't getting any
replies.
The machine we are trying to reach is: vaxa.cc.imperial.ac.uk, this
is a Vax 8600 at Imperial College running under Vax-VMS (it might also
be on bitnet).
The address we are currently using is:
umeed04%vaxa.cc.imperial.ac.uk@cuny.edu.
Any help anyone could provide would be appreciated. Responses can be
posted or e-mailed to the address below.
Thanks a bunch.
brantley
--
*******************************************************************************
* ask me if i care, go ahead, ask me *
* brantley@vax1.acs.udel.edu *
*******************************************************************************kagle@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Jonathan C. Kagle) (10/23/88)
In article <2181@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> brantley@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (brantley) writes: >A friend and I are trying to reach a machine in London, and while >the address we are using doesn't bounce back, we aren't getting any >replies. You are probably confused as you are using JANET instead of BITNET or INTERNET. Generally, JANET does not bounce back addresses to other networks, as this saves a lot of work at the gateways. >... >The address we are currently using is: > umeed04%vaxa.cc.imperial.ac.uk@cuny.edu. You are pretty close, but JANET addresses are in reverse order from least to most specific ("backwards" if you are used to INTERNET, just like the roads in the UK :-). I am also not sure if cuny.edu is a valid gateway. I have used Rutherford Labs with few problems. Try: umeed04%uk.ac.imperial.cc.vaxa@ac.uk If this doesn't work, try writing to POSTMASTER at this address. Virtually all JANET sites have a "postmaster" who can help with inquiries, if made politely. (You may be missing a zero, try umeed004). >brantley >******************************************************************************* >* ask me if i care, go ahead, ask me * >* brantley@vax1.acs.udel.edu * >******************************************************************************* -Jonathan
sjl@ukc.ac.uk (S.J.Leviseur) (10/25/88)
In article <2181@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> brantley@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (brantley) writes: >Hi! > >A friend and I are trying to reach a machine in London, and while >the address we are using doesn't bounce back, we aren't getting any >replies. > >The machine we are trying to reach is: vaxa.cc.imperial.ac.uk, this >is a Vax 8600 at Imperial College running under Vax-VMS (it might also >be on bitnet). > >The address we are currently using is: > umeed04%vaxa.cc.imperial.ac.uk@cuny.edu. > My guess is that mail will go inbound from cuny via ucl-cs. However that is a one way gate unless the user is authorised by ucl-cs. This means they cannot reply to you through it unless they have filled in the forms at UCL. An alternative route is via ukc, but we explicitly blackhole mail for that site for funding reasons. That leaves bitnet, you could probably route via ukacrl and have a twoway route. sean
jonathan@cs.keele.ac.uk (Jonathan Knight) (10/26/88)
From article <6660@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, by kagle@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Jonathan C. Kagle): > In article <2181@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> brantley@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (brantley) writes: >>A friend and I are trying to reach a machine in London, and while >>the address we are using doesn't bounce back, we aren't getting any >>replies. > >>The address we are currently using is: >> umeed04%vaxa.cc.imperial.ac.uk@cuny.edu. OK. Seeing as there isn't a followup from a UK'er in sight, here's my idea. The host uk.ac.ic.cc.vaxa (aka uk.ac.imperial.cc.vaxa) exists and accepts mail (I just checked our NRS database). The address starts with uk for JANET sites but most gateways will reverse it for you anyway. The user id umeed04 does exist as I've just mailed it with no error response from the VAX FTP. So its either the gateway that isn't mailing you back with errors or the person you're mailing isn't talking to you. Seeing as Imperial are failrly big they have probably payed up their UkNet subscription so try this address: ...!mcvax!ukc!umeed04@uk.ac.ic.cc.vaxa assuming ! have a higher priority than @'s in the uucp world. If you can get mail onto BITNET then the UK gateway is called UKACRL.BITNET (I think) and then use umeed04@uk.ac.ic.cc.vaxa from their. If you still have no luck then try ...!mcvax!ukc!uknet for help as they are the experts. -- _____ Jonathan Knight, || JANET: jonathan@uk.ac.keele.cs / Department of Computer Science || UUCP: ...!ukc!kl-cs!jonathan / _ __ University of Keele, Keele, |+------------------------------- (_/ (_) / / Staffordshire. ST5 5BG. U.K. || If in doubt, panic!
bct@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Brian Tompsett) (10/27/88)
The first query that started all this was: In article <2181@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> brantley@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (brantley) writes: >The machine we are trying to reach is: vaxa.cc.imperial.ac.uk, this >is a Vax 8600 at Imperial College running under Vax-VMS (it might also >be on bitnet). > >The address we are currently using is: > umeed04%vaxa.cc.imperial.ac.uk@cuny.edu. First reply: In article <6660@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> kagle@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Jonathan C. Kagle) writes: > ... I am also not sure if cuny.edu is a valid gateway. cunyvm.cuny.edu IS a valid internet/BITNET gateway and DOES know how to route to the UK via Rutherford Labs. >I have used Rutherford Labs with few problems. > Try: > umeed04%uk.ac.imperial.cc.vaxa@ac.uk This is only correct if the sending site is on BITNET/EARN already. This address is NOT correct from internet sites. umeed04%vaxa.cc.imperial.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu is the correct form for any site not in BITNET/EARN. > If this doesn't work, try writing to POSTMASTER at this address. >Virtually all JANET sites have a "postmaster" who can help with inquiries, >if made politely. Correct. However recent studies of all UK Postmasters have show them to be a little Tardy in responding. (i.e. time approaches infinity). > ........ (You may be missing a zero, try umeed004). No. One zero was probably OK. See later reply in this group. Second Reply: In article <5692@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> sjl@ukc.ac.uk (S.J.Leviseur) writes: > My guess is that mail will go inbound from cuny via ucl-cs. WRONG. cunyvm.cuny.edu is the Internet/BITNET gateway. It routes to the UK via Rutherford not ucl-cs. > However that is >a one way gate unless the user is authorised by ucl-cs. This means they >cannot reply to you through it unless they have filled in the forms at UCL. Perfectly correct. >An alternative route is via ukc, but we explicitly blackhole mail for that >site for funding reasons. A good reason to go via cunyvm.cuny.edu then. >That leaves bitnet, you could probably route via ukacrl and have a twoway >route. Yes. He was trying to do just that. Third reply: In article <295@kl-cs.UUCP> jonathan@cs.keele.ac.uk (Jonathan Knight) writes: >The host uk.ac.ic.cc.vaxa (aka uk.ac.imperial.cc.vaxa) >exists and accepts mail. Correct. > The address starts with uk for JANET sites but most > gateways will reverse it for you anyway. WRONG. UK gateways will mostly reverse the domains. However gateways on the US side (such as CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU) do not recognise the address in the reversed format. They need to be given in internet order (least significant end first) and not UK order (most significant end first). > The user id umeed04 does exist > as I've just mailed it with no error response Good. That deals with the question raised earlier. >Seeing as Imperial are failrly big they have probably payed up their >UkNet subscription so try this address: > ...!mcvax!ukc!umeed04@uk.ac.ic.cc.vaxa WRONG on two counts. Imperial College have not paid their UkNet subscription (according to Sean Leviseur - who should know). You cannot therefore route via ukc to imperial. Secondly the syntax is completely wrong for a route which traverses so many hosts. Each one may have a different precedence of ! and @. NEVER do it. ...!mcvax!ukc!vaxa.cc.ic.ac.uk!umeed04 would have been better syntax - or umeed04%vaxa.cc.ic.ac.uk%ukc@mcvax . Too bad it won't work. -------------- OK now some comments and some flames ------------------ Three replies to a simple request. All innacurate in some way that matters. No official replies from people who should know (like a representative of the JNT [Joint Network Team] that are responsible for JANET the UK academic network). One of the replies came from someone working at a UK gateway site - and still was mis-informed. No wonder our US friends have such trouble routing mail to us. For those overseas: The UK.AC is set up as follows: The world of USENET .-----> | ------. UUCP UUCP | | .---ukc.ac.uk------mcvax------uunet.uu.net------. ------| | ^ | Lots of | JANET | BITNET | UUCP | Sites |-----------------earn-relay.ac.uk------------PSUVAX1-' | *.ac.uk | An X.25 net | | | | | ------| | v | `--CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU----| | | CS.NET.RELAY | | | | ^ v `->The rest of EARN/BITNET | ------' | | to csnet | | | ARPA | `-nss.ucl.cs.ac.uk----------------.-------------' | v The Rest of the Arpa Internet. As you can see there is a physical link between all these UK gateways and all uk.ac sites (lets leaves uk.co and uk.mod out of this!). The only block to free flow of mail/messages are financial/administrative/authorisations. It should be possible to route from any US network to the UK. All UK gateways should have made Usenet map entries and Internet MX records for the *.ac.uk domain. Those with properly managed mailers should be able to access the UK no problem. pax brittanica. Brian. > Brian Tompsett. Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, > JCMB, The King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, EDINBURGH, EH9 3JZ, Scotland, U.K. > Telephone: +44 31 667 1081 x2711. > JANET: bct@uk.ac.ed.ecsvax ARPA: bct%ed.ecsvax@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
awm@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk (Aled Morris) (10/28/88)
>>The address we are currently using is: >> umeed04%vaxa.cc.imperial.ac.uk@cuny.edu. Not a bad attempt to use the BITNET gateway for free mail to/from the UK. >Seeing as Imperial are failrly big they have probably payed up their >UkNet subscription I don't think the computer centre has an account with UKC, so mail passing through there will dissappear (vaxa.cc is a VMS machine after all). The department of computing does have a UKnet account, see my signature for details. >... so try this address: > ...!mcvax!ukc!umeed04@uk.ac.ic.cc.vaxa >assuming ! have a higher priority than @'s in the uucp world. A safer way of expressing this would be: ...!ukc!uk.ac.ic.cc.vaxa!umeed04 (but it won't work for reasons explained above). UKC is fairly well connected, and known to the backbone sites (correct me if I'm wrong please). >If you can get mail onto BITNET then the UK gateway is called >UKACRL.BITNET (I think) and then use umeed04@uk.ac.ic.cc.vaxa from >their. I think the US end of the BITNET gateway is at CUNY, hence the original address was almost correct. Try: umeed04%vaxa.cc.ic.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu Hope this helps, Aled Morris systems programmer mail: awm@doc.ic.ac.uk | Department of Computing uucp: ..!ukc!icdoc!awm | Imperial College talk: 01-589-5111x5085 | 180 Queens Gate, London SW7 2BZ
ngc@gtephx.UUCP (Chris Ng) (11/10/88)
> > A safer way of expressing this would be: > > ...!ukc!uk.ac.ic.cc.vaxa!umeed04 > I also tried to mail to my brother in U of Nottingham but so far without luck. He however, successfully sent me a piece of mail earlier on. What is the ... in ...!ukc!uk.ac.kc.cc.vaxa!umeed04 meant? (I am not a computer guy) ^^^ Shall I do this "mail asuvax!ukc!uk.ac.nott.vax!mvzmm" ? Please help. Thx Chris
jonathan@cs.keele.ac.uk (Jonathan Knight) (11/11/88)
From article <3f911c50.15831@gtephx.UUCP>, by ngc@gtephx.UUCP (Chris Ng): >> A safer way of expressing this would be: >> ...!ukc!uk.ac.ic.cc.vaxa!umeed04 >> > I also tried to mail to my brother in U of Nottingham but so > far without luck. He however, successfully sent me a piece of mail earlier on. > > What is the ... in ...!ukc!uk.ac.kc.cc.vaxa!umeed04 meant? > ^^^ > Shall I do this "mail asuvax!ukc!uk.ac.nott.vax!mvzmm" ? The UUCP path is a list of machines seperated by !'s through which the mail should travel. The list is read from left to right, with the string on the far right being the user id to deliver the mail to. The ... is used to say "work out how to get to here and then use the rest of this path". For us UK'ers ukc is our gateway to the uucp world so we write ...!ukc at the start. ukc should be known to most of the world, so mailing ukc!uk.ac.nott.vax!mvzmm should work. If not try mcvax!ukc!uk.ac.nott.vax!mvzmm, and if that doesn't work then ask a local expert what the path is to mcvax and concatenate the two strings. -- _____ Jonathan Knight, || JANET: jonathan@uk.ac.keele.cs / Department of Computer Science || UUCP: ...!ukc!kl-cs!jonathan / _ __ University of Keele, Keele, || BITNET: jonathan%cs.kl.ac.uk@ (_/ (_) / / Staffordshire. ST5 5BG. U.K. || ---------------- cunyvm.bitnet
sjl@ukc.ac.uk (S.J.Leviseur) (11/11/88)
In article <3f911c50.15831@gtephx.UUCP> ngc@gtephx.UUCP (Chris Ng) writes: > >Shall I do this "mail asuvax!ukc!uk.ac.nott.vax!mvzmm" ? > >Please help. Thx > > Chris The Nottingham Computer Centre machine is on our blacklist. The ukc gateway not forward mail for them. Any mail sent to them will vanish down a black hole. This can all change as soon as they pay their bills :-) You could try routing mail via bitnet/earn instead, that may well work. sean
ngc@gtephx.UUCP (Chris Ng) (11/23/88)
In article <5865@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>, sjl@ukc.ac.uk (S.J.Leviseur) writes: > In article <3f911c50.15831@gtephx.UUCP> ngc@gtephx.UUCP (Chris Ng) writes: > > > >Shall I do this "mail asuvax!ukc!uk.ac.nott.vax!mvzmm" ? > > > The Nottingham Computer Centre machine is on our blacklist. > The ukc gateway not forward mail for them. Any mail sent to > them will vanish down a black hole. This can all change as > soon as they pay their bills :-) > > sean I thought we pay for the bill in the US :-) Anyway I managed to send mail to him via another gateway. Thanks for everyone's help. Chris