unniks@hulk.UUCP (unni) (05/04/87)
________________
i am in need of a list of BITNET sites i can connect to
through any arpa<-->bitnet gateway mechanism.
if some of you have a similar list you can mail/post, i'd
be grateful.
btw, we connect to BITNET through wiscvm. is there any other
gateway we could use?
cheers
unni
*******************************************************************************
C. Unni Krishnan
unni@mcc.COM ##Arpa Internet
unniks%hulk@milano.UUCP {..,gatech,..}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!hulk!unniks ##UUCP
*******************************************************************************dboyes@uoregon.UUCP (David Boyes) (03/01/88)
In article <456@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >>I sent the following letter to Karl a few days ago. These messages are >>legitimate and are caused by the software DOING THE RIGHT THING. >No they're not. See below. The software is performing exactly as specified -- contact Alan Crosswell at Columbia or Eric Thomas at the Pasteur Institute in Paris if you think it's being done wrong. Better yet, write something superior to RSCS and get IBM to market it. From the standpoint of receiving mail from J. Random Luser via some random mailing list, if the mail is not coming from a trusted gateway, it is *bogus* and the person ostensibly being impersonated should know that his/her/its name is being used without his/her/its permission. >>[my somewhat irritated comment about the authentication mechanisms] >>[(or lack thereof) provided by any Usenet-related program I've seen] >Usenet is not electronic mail. RN does not try to be imposter-proof because >the the underlying transport mechanism (UUCP or NNTP) are known to be >insecure. We live with that. One question: Why? >What does that have to do with mail, and >why would a Usenet poster give a rat's ass? I suggest you ask the people who have been carrying on the series of accusations about forged postings in any of three to six newsgroups. Names on request -- I'm not about to bring that down on this group. It's important to *someone* out there. >David explained the UOREGON failure messages tons of folks recently got came >about because some local person moved queued mail files. Read more carefully, Rich. The failure was at UWAVM -- the University of WASHINGTON. Long way from here, guy. >**If the BITNET mailer thought the message was spoofed it should have sat >**on it and told the postmaster! It should not have sent it! It did. 3576 times, to be exact. Tell me, Rich, would you rather that I deleted all 3576 postings? I know *I* haven't got time to read all of those messages. I'd much rather have the system warn the person this mail is trying to impersonate and then let THEM handle it. If they don't care, fine. If they DO care, let them use their own time and CPU to go after whoever it is. >As I've said before, I get lots of messages from BITNET sites almost every >time I put out something in comp.sources.unix. I'm tired of it, and I will >continue to complain and gripe in public forums to drum up sympathy and >support to get it stopped. > /r$ "As I've said before, I get lots of messages from Unix sites almost every time I put out something in SAS-L. I'm tired of it, and I will continue to complain and gripe in public forums to drum up sympathy and support to get it stopped." I'd certainly appreciate a better way to do things. Perhaps BBN would lend your services to the BTINET NIC for the express purpose of developing some better alternatives? I know I'd be glad to have some better tools. Until then, we're doing the best we can, given the inconsistencies in Usenet messages, different mail standards, brain-dead VMS mailers generating impossible-to-parse (even with REAL intelligence) rejection mail. At least you could understand the message you got. -- David Boyes | ARPA: 556%OREGON1.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Systems Division | BITNET: 556@OREGON1 UO Computing Center | UUCP: dboyes@uoregon.UUCP 'How long d'ya think it'll be before just us oldtimers remember WISCVM?'
page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (03/02/88)
One great (I think) thing about a comp.mail.sendmail newsgroup -- No BITNET subscribers! Think about it! ..Bob (donning BITNET-retardent jacket) -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page "I don't know such stuff. I just do eyes." -- from 'Blade Runner'
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (03/02/88)
I've probably been too harsh both to david@uoregon and in general. Something I don't do causes me to get mail messages I don't want, and sometimes I lose patience. Apologies all around for anyone I offended. In all likelihood, BITNET is a fine sevice. As I don't really use it, I don't know. And I'm certainly not in a position to tell other people how to do their jobs, manager their mail, or anythikng like that. Somehow, though, if I personally never got another mail message from anyone or any machine on BITNET, I would not consider it to be a case of losing the baby with the bathwater. Yeah, I probably have an attitude problem. /r$ -- For comp.sources.unix stuff, mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
egisin@watmath.waterloo.edu (Eric Gisin) (03/03/88)
In article <1624@uoregon.UUCP>, dboyes@uoregon.UUCP (David Boyes) writes: > The software is performing exactly as specified -- contact Alan > Crosswell at Columbia or Eric Thomas at the Pasteur Institute in Paris > if you think it's being done wrong. Better yet, > write something superior to RSCS and get IBM to market it. From the IBM does market a TCP/IP product. I don't know if it has a decent mailer. The problem would be in getting BITNET to change.
dboyes@uoregon.UUCP (David Boyes) (03/04/88)
In article <17222@watmath.waterloo.edu> egisin@watmath.waterloo.edu (Eric Gisin) writes: >IBM does market a TCP/IP product. I don't know if it has a decent mailer. >The problem would be in getting BITNET to change. Not likely. First of all, the IBM VM/TCP costs BIG $$$. RSCS (v1 or v2) is relatively dirt cheap -- less than a tenth of the cost last time I checked. Second, VM/TCP requires specialized hardware (a 7170 -- essentially a 370 channel to Ethernet box) that most sites using a lot of IBM hardware just don't have. Most sites have a 37xx communications controller with a spare bisync port on it -- RSCS likes that just fine. I think it's more cost than lack of desire to get better networking stuff running; you can pay $1500 a year to license RSCS or $70,000+ to get a 7170 and VM/TCP and the necessary maintenance, etc. You can bet on what most sites choose. Anybody out there running this thing and want to tell about it? I've heard the SMTP server has a few 'features' that cause some interesting effects. -- David Boyes | ARPA: 556%OREGON1.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Systems Division | BITNET: 556@OREGON1 UO Computing Center | UUCP: dboyes@uoregon.UUCP 'How long d'ya think it'll be before just us oldtimers remember WISCVM?'
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (03/08/88)
IBM was never happy with the 7170 (DACU) approach and now has a new kludge (8232). In addition, you can run TCP through 3705 Bisync lines. Bruce Crabill (BRUCE@UMDD) did the code. -Ron
dmcanzi@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) (03/08/88)
In article <17222@watmath.waterloo.edu> egisin@watmath.waterloo.edu (Eric Gisin) writes: >IBM does market a TCP/IP product. I don't know if it has a decent mailer. >The problem would be in getting BITNET to change. IBM includes with TCP/IP a modified version of the note command that recognizes note files with non-BITNET addresses and uses SMTP over ethernet to forward them, instead of using RSCS. I don't think IBM does the next obvious thing, which is to provide gateway software, and modified note commands for non-TCP/IP sites so they can send E-mail beyond the confines of BITNET. Given IBM's tendency to strut and crow (in their promotional material) about modest achievements I expect I would have heard some noise about it if they had provided a gateway facility. -- David Canzi