Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 04:30:01 PDT From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group Errors-To: TCP-Group-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #182 To: tcp-group-digest TCP-Group Digest Wed, 24 Aug 94 Volume 94 : Issue 182 Today's Topics: CIX (2 msgs) CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange (7 msgs) Computers, ethernet and lightning protection (2 msgs) Dos Computers (2 msgs) Enough (2 msgs) Enough (fwd) KISS packet driver ? Mail Delivery Status Strange HELO Strange HELO (fwd) Testing Send Replies or notes for publication to: . Subscription requests to . Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 12:34:08 PDT From: "Roy Engehausen" Subject: CIX To: TCP-GROUP@UCSD.EDU Let's not start the CIX debate here too. There are enough groups doing this already. Suffice to say that CIX is NOT a trade-group interested in furthering the industry as a whole but is a business whose aim it is to further the interests of its members. Roy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 17:42:02 -0400 (EDT) From: DJ Gregor Subject: CIX To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu (TCP Group) > Let's not start the CIX debate here too. There are enough groups > doing this already. Suffice to say that CIX is NOT a trade-group > interested in furthering the industry as a whole but is a business > whose aim it is to further the interests of its members. I think we should end the CIX debate also. Last time I checked, this group was for discussion of TCP/IP as it relates to amateur radio, which there has been a shortage of lately. -DJ, N8QLB dgregor@bronze.coil.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 10:31:22 -0400 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange To: mikebw@bilow.bilow.uu.ids.net > While we're on this subject of the desirability of everything talking to > everything, I would like to raise the issue of the Commercial Internet > Exchange, CIX, pronounced "kicks." > > CIX was originally created as a consortium of Internet access providers who > would route among themselves, thus bypassing the famous NSF-Net Acceptable Use > Policy restrictrictions on commercial use of the Internet. On July 14, the CIX > Board of Directors voted to enforce routing restrictions against non-members of > CIX. The requirement for membership in CIX, basically, is that you have to pay > them $7,500 per year or $750 per month, plus additional fees in some cases. Let me comment on this CIX issue, which I'm real disappointed to see brought out and misunderstood in this forum as well. The company that I work for, UUNET Technologies, operates Alternet, a commercial, public IP network service. You can subscribe to it and get connected to the Internet. We are also one of the founding members of the CIX. On July 14, the CIX didn't change any policy; they voted to simply *enforce* the terms and conditions which CIX members have contractually agreed to. They also decided to *lower* the CIX membership fee. [...] > > > In my opinion, this seems like a return to the early days of telephone service, > where each telephone company refused to allow its subscribers to call the > subscribers of a competing telephone service without payment of a fee. The > government finally stepped in to put a stop to that, for obvious reasons, and > it looks like we might have to go through a similar period of chaos soon on the > Internet. Actually, one of the intents of the CIX was to have a facility for multiple IP network service providers exchange traffic without any "settlements", which is where one carrier reimburses another based on the volume of traffic. This settlement model is one that the existing telephone system uses, and may thought that this would be a bad thing. So this organization was formed which you could become a member of. It had well defined policies and offered a service: settlement free exchange amongst its members. There was a specific routing policy enforced by the CIX router which allowed routes to be exchanged between each member which connected to the router, or who's traffic was transited to the router by another CIX member. > I am not sure what to make of this change in CIX policy. It certainly seems to > me to have all of the trappings of a "combination in restraint of trade," > although applying such a principle to the Internet may prove to be a daunting > prospect. My guess is that CIX and its members are going to be sued through > the floor if they actually try to implement this, with claims starting at > breach of contract and working their way up to antitrust. Pardon me, but this is just plain bullshit. The policy of the CIX has not changed - they have only chosen to actually enforce the policy which each member contractually agreed to when they joined. Further, there is no "restraint of trade" because there are many, many other points of interconnection between carriers. Alternet *also* connects to many of these (probably more than most others). No one forces any particular service provider to join they CIX - it is simply an easy way to get traffic to a bunch of other service providers. > What seems clear is that we may shortly have two separate and disconnected > Internets, one comprised of those CIX members and their subscribers, and one > consisting of everybody else. Subscribers to one will have no connectivity > with the other, and vice versa. My understanding is that several major > providers, such as JvNC Net, will be boycotting CIX. A provider is free to connect to any other Internet service provider at will. For instance, UUNET Techologies also helped found MAE-EAST, which is a interconnection point in the Washington, DC area based on a metro-area Ethernet technology. There are perhaps a dozen Internet Service Providers which connect to MAE-EAST, which is by definition a policy-free interconnection service. That is, each ISP make bi-lateral agreements with each other povider on which routes it will exchange with each other ISP. The routes we don't get from the CIX, we'll get over MAE-East. In fact, we prefer the routes on MAE-East because the path is shorter and higher performance. We also have a 10MB/s connection with Sesquinet in Texax, a DS3 (45Mb/s) connection with NEARNET in the Boston area, and are spinning up 45 MB/s SMDS connections in the Washington DC and SF Bay Area which will also be used for exchanging traffic with other providers. There are plenty of alternatives - they just cost money. If non-CIX members were allowed to send traffic through the CIX routers, why would anyone join the CIX, and who would pay for the Cisco 7000 router (about $45K) and to maintain the hardware and administer the box? The CIX is a "club". If you join, you get to use the facilities, and if you don't, you can't. This seems fair to me. One of the "services" of the CIX is that you can easily exchange traffic with all other CIX members - this is probably cheaper than running a seperate T1 line to each one of them. If a provider disagrees with the policies of the CIX, they by all means don't have to join, but they have to make their own arrangements for getting traffic to other Internet Service Providers. Louis A. Mamakos, WA3YMH louie@alter.net UUNET Technologies, Inc. uunet!louie 3110 Fairview Park Drive., Suite 570 Voice: +1 703 204 8023 Falls Church, Va 22042 Fax: +1 703 204 8001 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 12:33:41 -0400 From: Raul Deluth Miller Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange To: tcp-group@UCSD.EDU Ultimately, the problem with the CIX "routing restraint" policy is this: it's completely ambiguous. [1] Net topology is amorphous. It's not clear that these routing policies have any meaning for the long haul. [Given the nature of the internet, it won't be completely clear who the policies will affect until after the policies are implemented -- and perhaps not even then.] [2] The very concept of "selling IP transit" is cloudy. If someone decides to provide ip services through a firewall (e.g. for pop mail clients and nothing else, or perhaps also WWW traffic but with a couple gigabytes of local cache), this policy becomes meaningless -- and thus a blunt weapon in the hands of whoever is administering enforcement. [3] It's not clear what traffic is/isn't member traffic -- does this policy mean that to go across the CIX router in california either the source or destination address of a packet must be a CIX member? Or is this policy based on traffic content? [4] It's not clear what relevance this policy has towards traffic originating in other economic systems (e.g. the European community). It's pretty clear that this policy is a reflection of the NSF's acceptable use policy -- which is on the way out (and note that the CIX is intended to be one of the mechanisms for getting rid of the effects of this policy). I imagine that the policy will be fixed once some of the problems become apparent. Possible scenarios include: (*) policy is enforced unevenly -- CIX is hit with anti-trust action, end of story. (*) policy is enforced evenly -- CIX becomes a minor aspect of net traffic and thus irrelevant. (*) policy is not enforced at all -- end of story. Ultimately, the decision is up to CIX. The big immediate problem is FUD. -- Raul D. Miller n =: p*q NB. 9<##:##:n [.large prime p, q y =: n&|&(*&x)^:e 1 NB. -.1 e.e e.&factors<:p,q [.e There are plenty of alternatives - they just cost money. If non-CIX LAM> members were allowed to send traffic through the CIX routers, why LAM> would anyone join the CIX, and who would pay for the Cisco 7000 router LAM> (about $45K) and to maintain the hardware and administer the box? The LAM> CIX is a "club". If you join, you get to use the facilities, and if LAM> you don't, you can't. This seems fair to me. One of the "services" LAM> of the CIX is that you can easily exchange traffic with all other CIX LAM> members - this is probably cheaper than running a seperate T1 line to LAM> each one of them. LAM> If a provider disagrees with the policies of the CIX, they by all LAM> means don't have to join, but they have to make their own arrangements LAM> for getting traffic to other Internet Service Providers. You could call OPEC and the KKK "clubs," too, but the issue is what their activities are. If the Internet operated on a telephone network model, where there was a unified hub that actually was the center of the net, then it might make sense to say that subnet A and subnet B should not be allowed to route to each other through their connections to subnet M and subnet N, where A is connected to M, M is connected to N, and N is connected to B. This would be using the services of M and N, including the link, to provide services of no real benefit to them. As I read the rules, a service provider who is a member of CIX is prohibited from providing routing services to any non-CIX member who provides routing services to others. This is a completely different issue: CIX is not only prohibiting the use of its own router facilities, but the router facilities of its members. It is THIS distinction which raises, in my opinion, the issue of restraint of trade. CIX is operating as a classical cartel, where you must promise in order to join that you will do business only with other CIX members. For example, consider service providers M, who is a member of CIX, and service provider A, who is not a CIX member. The CIX rules, as I read them, say that M is prohibited from allowing A to buy a private wire to M in order to connect the customers of A and of M, since this would be providing "IP transit." In fact, the rules say, as I read them, that A could buy a private wire to M if and only if A also paid the CIX membership fee. If my interpretation is wrong about this, and I am misreading the CIX rules, please tell me so. -- Mike ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 14:32:37 -0400 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange To: mikebw@bilow.bilow.uu.ids.net The very first thing is that you have to realize that there is no "center of the Internet". There is just a web of connectivity between various networks and carriers. This is the reality of the situation, and not what NSF or the US government would have you believe. > As I read the rules, a service provider who is a member of CIX is prohibited > from providing routing services to any non-CIX member who provides routing > services to others. This is a completely different issue: CIX is not only > prohibiting the use of its own router facilities, but the router facilities of > its members. It is THIS distinction which raises, in my opinion, the issue of > restraint of trade. CIX is operating as a classical cartel, where you must > promise in order to join that you will do business only with other CIX members. The CIX agreement specifies what the CIX will do for its members. It's members are free to go off and do other private arrangments as they wish. In one way of thinking, the CIX provides a connectivity service - if you want to use it, you must join the CIX. > For example, consider service providers M, who is a member of CIX, and service > provider A, who is not a CIX member. The CIX rules, as I read them, say that M > is prohibited from allowing A to buy a private wire to M in order to connect > the customers of A and of M, since this would be providing "IP transit." In > fact, the rules say, as I read them, that A could buy a private wire to M if > and only if A also paid the CIX membership fee. This is incorrect. We have private interconnections to other service providers, be they CIX members or not. The issue is that just because you, M, have a private interconnect with A, doesn't mean that the CIX will pass traffic to or from A. This whole issue, vastly blown out of proportion, is that the CIX would like some say over who uses their router. I cannot see why anyone could rationally disagree with this. It costs real money to buy the boxes and lease the lines - if you want to use the facilities it only seems fair that you pay for them. Nothing is stopping some other enterprising souls from establishing their own interconnection points, and selling it as a service. This is what MFS has done with MAE-EAST by selling a reasonably cheap (~$2K month) 10Mb/s connection for service providers. Louis A. Mamakos, WA3YMH louie@alter.net UUNET Technologies, Inc. uunet!louie 3110 Fairview Park Drive., Suite 570 Voice: +1 703 204 8023 Falls Church, Va 22042 Fax: +1 703 204 8001 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 14:56:29 -0400 From: "C. Harald Koch" Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange To: mikebw@bilow.bilow.uu.ids.net > As I read the rules, a service provider who is a member of CIX is prohibited > from providing routing services to any non-CIX member who provides routing > services to others. *sigh. You've been in the middle of the discussions on com-priv; surely you would have gotten this straight by now. You are prohibited from offering CIX routing (i.e. transit to/through the CIX router) to other IP transit providers. That doesn't mean you cannot connect to other transit providers; you just can't offer them access to/through the CIX router. You are also perfectly free to make your own interconnect arrangements with other service providers (even other CIX members). For example, Alternet, PSI, and Sprint all have peering arrangements with each other that don't involve the CIX router, even though all are CIX members. This is now clearly stated in the documents available at www.cix.org and ftp.cix.org. Please stop spreading mis-information, especially when this isn't the forum for it. -- C. Harald Koch | University of Toronto Computing & Communications harald@canet.ca | Network & Operations Services +1 416 978 0992 (voice) | External Network Facilities Managment +1 416 978 6620 (fax) | 4 Bancroft Ave., Rm 101, Toronto, ON M5S 1C1 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 11:56:53 -0700 From: Phil Karn Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange To: louie@alter.net >Pardon me, but this is just plain bullshit. The policy of the CIX has >not changed - they have only chosen to actually enforce the policy >which each member contractually agreed to when they joined. I still find this policy disappointing, especially because it seems to discourage the provision of end-user dialup SLIP/PPP services. I've wondered for some time why these always seem to be priced above "dumb terminal" access to a network-connected public-access UNIX system, even when the user doesn't want to use any of the resources of the public UNIX system. But all this will soon become academic. Once we widely deploy the IP security protocol that's being developed in the IETF IPSEC group, third party traffic restrictions imposed by Internet service providers will all become impossible to enforce, at least by traffic monitoring. With IPSEC's encrypted encapsulation scheme, there is simply no way to determine whether or not two hosts using it are communicating between themselves or are actually relaying traffic on behalf of other hosts. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 20:51:00 -0000 From: mikebw@bilow.bilow.uu.ids.net (Mike Bilow) Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu On 94 Aug 23 at 18:32, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: LAM> The very first thing is that you have to realize that LAM> there is no "center of the Internet". There is just a web LAM> of connectivity between various networks and carriers. LAM> This is the reality of the situation, and not what NSF or LAM> the US government would have you believe. I never claimed that the Internet had a "center." In fact, part of what bothers me about the CIX proposal is the apparent attempt to create such a "center." LAM> The CIX agreement specifies what the CIX will do for its LAM> members. It's members are free to go off and do other LAM> private arrangments as they wish. In one way of thinking, LAM> the CIX provides a connectivity service - if you want to LAM> use it, you must join the CIX. This is simply not how I read the CIX rules, and, if it is a misunderstanding, then it is a widespread, if not nearly universal, one. LAM> This is incorrect. We have private interconnections to LAM> other service providers, be they CIX members or not. The LAM> issue is that just because you, M, have a private LAM> interconnect with A, doesn't mean that the CIX will pass LAM> traffic to or from A. LAM> This whole issue, vastly blown out of proportion, is that LAM> the CIX would like some say over who uses their router. I LAM> cannot see why anyone could rationally disagree with this. LAM> It costs real money to buy the boxes and lease the lines - LAM> if you want to use the facilities it only seems fair that LAM> you pay for them. No one would disagree with the idea of CIX charging for traffic to cross the common CIX router, but the policy statements I have seen from CIX give the impression, at least to me, that CIX considers the CIX cloud which is subject to restrictions to include all CIX members. I read the rules as an attempt to make the Internet a kind of "closed shop," where CIX members refuse to work with other service providers who are not CIX members. I don't think that the Teamsters are a good model upon which to build the Internet, obviously. LAM> Nothing is stopping some other enterprising souls from LAM> establishing their own interconnection points, and selling LAM> it as a service. This is what MFS has done with MAE-EAST LAM> by selling a reasonably cheap (~$2K month) 10Mb/s LAM> connection for service providers. I am not familiar with the MAE-EAST system. My understanding of the CIX rules is based, quite simply, on reading them. Perhaps the rules are badly written, and terms such as "CIX Routing Services" need to be more clearly defined. At best, accepting your interpretation, I see a lot of the traditional low-cost access points into the Internet, usually piggybacked onto commercial or educational accounts, drying up. The CIX rules prohibit, for example, a couple of small business entities getting together and sharing a Class C subnet, with one routing for the other. There are a lot of 5-10 host LANs operating under such co-operative agreements, and now these sorts of systems are going to run afoul of the CIX rules. I think that CIX may also kill the "freenet" movement, which has traditionally been piggybacked on university wires. Last I heard, the Ocean State (Rhode Island) Freenet was buying service at cost from Brown University, which buys service from NEARNET, which is in CIX. In order to comply with CIX rules, both Brown and Ocean State Freenet must each cough up the CIX membership fee, which means that the cost of operation has just increased by $15,000 -- for a service that is not supposed to charge anyone anything. I think that the regulation of traffic based on content is fundamentally wrong-headed. If CIX wants to charge for anything, then they should throw in the towel and charge for bandwidth. All real money costs on the Internet are ultimately a reflection of bandwidth, which has unambiguous physical definition. I simply don't understand why, in the above example, it should cost $15,000 more to connect people who are not Brown students and faculty through the same wire and across the same bandwidth. CIX would be a lot easier to understand if they said: we have a router, and we are willing to sell you a 56 kbps or 1.544 Mbps or 10 Mbps slot on it for such-and-such amount of money, and you can do what you want with it once you buy it. -- Mike ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 15:34:01 -0600 From: jra1854@tntech.edu (Jeffrey Austen) Subject: Computers, ethernet and lightning protection To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu I want to hook up two computers via ethernet. One of the computers is hooked to antennas via radios (it is running a version of NOS; the CPU and operating system used are irrelevant to this discussion) and is therefore a good candidate for a lightning hit. There is some lightning protection on the antenna cables but it is probably not sufficient to survive a direct hit; I accept the risk that the NOS computer is exposed to. How can I hook the computers together via ethernet while providing a high degree of lightning protection for the second computer? Fiber optic ethernet seems like the best solution except that the cost appears to be on the order of $500 for a pair of transceivers. Are there good quality lightning protectors for 10BASE2 or 10BASE-T ethernet cables? Where can I find them? Jeff, k9ja +-+ Jeffrey Austen | Tennessee Technological University jra1854@tntech.edu | Box 5004 (615) 372-3485 | Cookeville Tennessee 38505 U.S.A. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 20:24:01 -0400 From: Jim De Arras Subject: Computers, ethernet and lightning protection To: jra1854@tntech.edu (Jeffrey Austen) > I want to hook up two computers via ethernet. One of the computers is > hooked to antennas via radios (it is running a version of NOS; the CPU and > operating system used are irrelevant to this discussion) and is therefore a > good candidate for a lightning hit. There is some lightning protection on > the antenna cables but it is probably not sufficient to survive a direct > hit; I accept the risk that the NOS computer is exposed to. How can I hook > the computers together via ethernet while providing a high degree of > lightning protection for the second computer? Fiber optic ethernet seems > like the best solution except that the cost appears to be on the order of > $500 for a pair of transceivers. Are there good quality lightning > protectors for 10BASE2 or 10BASE-T ethernet cables? Where can I find them? > > Jeff, k9ja I have a similar setup, using RG-58 (Thinnet). I had a high quality lightning arrestor the tower end of the circuit. I also had inadequate tower grounding on my 180 foot tower. It took a direct hit a few years back. The NOS computer was toast, arcing all over all boards, and the cabinet. The ethernet arrestor blew-up. Enough energy made it to the cable and down the 500 feet to my home to take out 3 3C503 cards, a Mac thinnet transceiver, a ethernet to appletalk box, and the high dollar eithernet card in my Router. I think the one arrestor kept the damage down to the ethernet cards only, but if I were starting from scratch now, I'd spend the bucks for the fiber optic link! BTW, I have arrestors at BOTH ends of that 500 foot run, now, and have properly grounded that tower. I suspect just the second lightning arrestor alone would've prevented all the damage caused outside the shack. Jim WA4ONG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 08:36:43 -0700 From: brian@nothing.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) Subject: Dos Computers To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu In article klarsen@kazak.NMSU.EDU (Klarsen) writes: > Yes I wish I could spare $500 for a big HD. My wife Juanita says >"how big is my HD?". I say 120 mbyte. She says what the Hell do I need >1000 mbytes for? Discussion closed....hi Oh, then its your *WIFE* that needs to be upgraded. That's achievable; go find a new one that's technically competent and enjoys computing. Why'd you pick this one if it's so obviously unsuited to your lifestyle? - Brian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 09:42:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Lyndon Nerenberg Subject: Dos Computers To: Klarsen On Mon, 22 Aug 1994, Klarsen wrote: > > In other words, "stop experimenting, because I {cannot afford, can't be > > bothered} to keep up." > I didn't say that Lyndon, you did. No, YOU said it. I just cut out a lot of the verbiage. > Where have you been for the past 40 years? The way things are > now the experts who happen to be hams hand down nice things like NOS to > us so we can play tcp/ip. But they have a family to feed so they sell 60 > hours a week of their time to a business. Are you so above the rest of > the world you don't see this? As I said previously, you argument boils down to: please stop experimenting because I cannot afford to keep up. Having kids was your choice. Messing with radios was my choice. I'm not going to let your kids slow down my hobby. --lyndon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 12:57:09 PST From: "schoon" Subject: Enough To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu >>Brian wrote: >>And might I remind YOU that this is an internet discussion list for >people >>actively involved in advanced amateur radio networking. >Emotions fly high at >>times among creative people; strong language is >occasionally necessary to >>express strong emotions. >May I point out that there are no age restrictions on who may subscribe to >Internet etc. Whilst I appreciate there are far worse corners of the Internet >there can be no real justification for some of the language I have seen. >I suppose I will receive all sorts of language in flames for this one. >mlines@sni.co.uk And how many eight year olds subscribe to this group?? So far this arguement of "My toy is better than your toy" has been rather dull. But alas I'll still read this group! Mark schoon@ada.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 15:26:45 -0700 From: brian@nothing.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) Subject: Enough To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu >>May I point out that there are no age restrictions on who may subscribe Children are not welcome on this discussion group. If your mental age is insufficient to withstand the rigours of discussions hereupon, you are encouraged to leave. Gentlemen, this group's discussions are straying far from its charter as a place where people who are actively working on advanced amateur radio networking are wont to gather. Is it time to acknowledge that no one is doing anything useful and shut down the list? If we're just wasting time, let's adjourn. - Brian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 10:11:45 -0400 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" Subject: Enough (fwd) To: Martin Lines > Brian wrote: > >And might I remind YOU that this is an internet discussion list for > >people actively involved in advanced amateur radio networking. > >Emotions fly high at times among creative people; strong language is > >occasionally necessary to express strong emotions. > > May I point out that there are no age restrictions on who may subscribe > to Internet etc. Whilst I appreciate there are far worse corners of the > Internet there can be no real justification for some of the language I > have seen. There is no "Internet" thing that you subscribe to. The Internet is a way to move bags of bits around between mutually cooperating systems and networks. You things that vary between large commerical systems like America Online and Compuserv, down to the UNIX and Windows boxes that I have at home, all on this "Internet" thing. It's like saying there are no age restrictions on who may subscribe to "books", or who is allowed to use a phone. It really doesn't make any sense - there is no policy enforced by the infrastructure. I'm painfully aware of all this because I work for an Internet Service Provider that will be pleased to sell anyone a pipe to the Internet. Louis A. Mamakos, WA3YMH louie@alter.net UUNET Technologies, Inc. uunet!louie 3110 Fairview Park Drive., Suite 570 Voice: +1 703 204 8023 Falls Church, Va 22042 Fax: +1 703 204 8001 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 22:38:34 -0400 From: markfrey@HOOKUP.NET (Mark Frey) Subject: KISS packet driver ? To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu A few months ago, someone mentioned they were developing a KISS packet driver, and had a primitive version working. Unfortunately, I failed to note the author's name or e-mail at the time :-( Does anyone here know where I can reach this guy, or anyone else developing a KISS packet driver ? 73, Mark Frey Internet: markfrey@hookup.net AMPRnet: ve3dte@ve3dte.ampr.org ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 1994 03:55:03 GMT From: "Central Postmaster" Subject: Mail Delivery Status ***** Error in Mail Delivery ***** E0100-ZIPSCA003E-ZIP PACKET GLOBAL ERROR Recipients: NSYSTEM.ZMPEHOR@A50VM1.TRG.NYNEX.COM ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 20:08:51 PDT From: erik@ve7mdl.ampr.org Subject: Strange HELO To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu While watching the trace of my local SMTP gateway, I noticed that it often starts the transfer with 'EHLO' instead of the usual 'HELO'. My JNOS system (1.10f) responds with 'command unknown' and my SMTP partner then sends the correct 'HELO' and everything works well from there. Can anyone tell me what is going on? 73 de VE7MDL ....Erik. (Sysop, ve7mdl.ampr.org) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 15:34:10 +1000 (EST) From: imb@asstdc.scgt.oz.au (michael butler) Subject: Strange HELO (fwd) To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu erik@ve7mdl.ampr.org writes: > While watching the trace of my local SMTP gateway, I noticed that it often > starts the transfer with 'EHLO' instead of the usual 'HELO'. The remote mailer (most likely smail 3.1 w/patches) is looking to start an 'enhanced' SMTP session. Possibilities are transfer batching, mime-support and size restriction. > My JNOS system (1.10f) responds with 'command unknown' and my SMTP partner > then sends the correct 'HELO' and everything works well from there. smail does it differently to sendmail 8.6.x .. sendmail specifically looks for the answering system to post 'esmtp spoken here' where smail just uses a trial and error approach. michael ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 1994 08:44:10 -0400 From: dc@panix.com (David W. Crawford) Subject: Testing To: tcp-ip-out@panix.com This is a test to see if I can post to panix.mlist.tcp. I'm just exploring the 'anything thats legal' user contract/ info document. Don Samek may wish to look carefully at the path and headers of this message, since he's so interested my ability to post to panix.staff.*. -- David Crawford dc@panix.com crawford@Arizona.EDU "I always come to a full *and* complete stop at stop signs, unless I'm in a hurry in which case I just come to a complete stop." ------------------------------ End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #182 ******************************