Is it posible to do VT100 or others with WNOS or JNOS programs??
Where can i find the routines to do this??
If I hang on Unix system i can't run the vi programs O:-) ... with
this programs ...
Thanks from Curro eb3aod
e-mail: jgrau@rigel.etse.urv.es
ax-25: eb3aod@ea3rdt.eat.esp.eu
Gateway in Spain : albinyana.etse.urv.es
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 94 20:51 CST
From: kelly@kc4rdj.raider.net (Kelly L. Fulks)
Subject: Food For Thought -- The BBS Network
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
>>We didn't ARBITRARILY hand you your head.
>>
>>I believe that the best scheme proposed so far for integrating the
>>hambbs world with the Internet is this:
>>
>>Gateways which move bbs mail into the internet would be responsible for
>>routing mail back the other way. That means that if mail from a bbs
>>were to pass through the W6XYZ gateway, the W6XYZ gateway would list
>>itself as a mail exchanger for that BBS.
>>
>>The way this would be done would be that the return address of the BBS
>>(e.g, From: W6TYP@WB6KDT.#SOCA.CA.USA.NOAM) would be transformed by
>>the gatewaying system (e.g, WB6CYT.AMPR.ORG) to an internet address
>>(i.e., From: W6TYP@WB6KDT.AMPR.ORG), and the gateway would verify that
>>an MX (Mail eXchanger) record for WB6KDT.AMPR.ORG is listed with the
>>AMPR.ORG nameserver. It would even be possible to prioritorize the
>>gateways; the MX preference could be set to 100 + bbs_to_gw_hopcount.
>>
>>The gateway would be responsible for adding the entry to the nameserver
>>if one didn't already exist. Since there are only a limited number of
>>BBSs in any region around a gateway system, the nameserver would soon be
>>up to date with the relevant entries.
>>
>>Additionally, the gatwaying system would be responsible for verifying
>>that it had sufficient routing information on the ham radio side to
>>return mail arriving for that BBS - and adding it to its bbs routing
>>tables if it didn't already. Again, that's not that large a table,
>>and it really doesn't grow very fast.
>>
>>No, no existing piece of code does this today. But if you're going to
>>do it right, do it RIGHT!
>> - Brian
>>
Great IDEA! Who is going to implement it?
This will make an already large program (NOS) even larger (auto update of nameserrver, verifing its own MX records, auto hop check which only works for IP right).
Not to mention we are monkeying around with the From: line which I thought was sacred.
73,
--
Kelly L. Fulks (KC4RDJ)
internet kelly@kc4rdj.raider.net csklf@knuth.mtsu.edu
amprnet kc4rdj@kc4rdj1.ampr.org. [44.34.0.9]
amateur radio kc4rdj@ab4zb.#midtn.tn.usa.na
US Mail 2507 Splinter Crt., Murfreesboro, TN 37130
/-----------------------------------/
| TenNet - networking the state /
/ from corner to corner /
| to corner to corner /
/______________________________/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 94 12:09:53 CST
From: andyw@aspen.cray.com (Andy Warner)
Subject: Food For Thought -- The BBS Network
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu (TCP Group)
kelly@kc4rdj.raider.net (Kelly L. Fulks) wrote:
> [Brians stuff deleted...]
> Great IDEA! Who is going to implement it?
> This will make an already large program (NOS) even larger (auto update of nameserrver, verifing its own MX records, auto hop check which only works for IP right).
Well, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, don't put it in NOS,
implement it on some other platform.. (Linux, 386BSD, *nix, OS/2 ..)
> Not to mention we are monkeying around with the From: line which I thought was sacred.
Mailers all over the world do it all the time. If you are gatewaying
between two namespaces, your options are severely limited.
--
andyw. N0REN/G1XRL
andyw@aspen.cray.com Andy Warner, Cray Research, Inc. (612) 683-5835
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 94 17:29:53 GMT
From: Alan Cox <iiitac@pyramid.swansea.ac.uk>
Subject: Food For Thought -- The BBS Network
To: kelly@kc4rdj.raider.net, tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Changing the From: line would not be good. Adding a Reply-To: or
parsing the Reply-To: line is not a problem. (In fact it's done regulary).
As to the size business its about time people recognized that NOS is
already a miracle and expecting it to do much more is foolish. Brian
Kantor has the basics of proper AX.25 IP on NetBSD, I've got the core of
AX.25 and AX.25 IP on Linux and the nice people at Berkeley wrote things
like sendmail which can already do the rest of the job.
Now before I get flamed with 'But I've only got a 286...': How many people
would need to run actual sites doing this operation - not many at all.
How many people's JNOS systems already go castors up on a large burst
of mail/bbs traffic ?
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 16:18:49 -0800
From: brian@nothing.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Subject: Food For Thought -- The BBS Network
To: tcp-group@nothing.ucsd.edu
In article <25267.9403071729@pyr.swan.ac.uk> you write:
>Changing the From: line would not be good. Adding a Reply-To: or
>parsing the Reply-To: line is not a problem. (In fact it's done regulary).
Adding a Reply-To: line is a real bad idea. It violates the purpose of
the reply-to spec, and would presumably cause problems if there already
were a reply-to header line. Better to change the From: line. When
you gateway mail between transport systems, you nearly always have to
change the From line.
It's time for people to realize that this kind of thing is not a quick
hack. We need to think it through THOROUGHLY, and then use sufficient
resources to do it RIGHT.
On the whole subject of NOS-based BBSs:
It's also time to for people to realize that it's unrealistic to try to
make NOS do all this. NOS is an excellent packet router and protocol
converter, but it's clearly not the right platform on which to do advanced
networking.
It seems to me that the right thing to do with NOS is to use it as a
router that controls your radios, does net/rom if it must, and provides
transparent access to the actual utilities running on another system.
To that end, I've developed a set of patches to Anders' mailbox code
that simply opens a telnet session to a pre-defined host and port when
you connect to NOS with AX.25 or Net/rom. Presumably that telnet
destination is a BBS-like object running on a Lunix or BSDI or Sun or
some other multi-tasking system box. Phil has those patches; I guess I
can make them available as soon as I remember where I stored them.
Let NOS do what it does best; use one of the real multitasking OSs do
the other jobs they do best.
- Brian
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 94 16:06:00 -0000
From: mikebw@bilow.bilow.uu.ids.net (Mike Bilow)
Subject: Index
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Cc: stu@lab.r1.fws.gov
SM> I'm also envoking nos by changing into the c:\nos directory and issuing a
SM> nos -dc:\nos command. So the root should be c:\nos.
Try "-d/nos" or even "-dc:/nos" instead, with FORWARD slashes.
-- Mike
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 94 22:47:18 UTC
From: dk3uz@dk3uz.ampr.org
Subject: test
To: tcp-group%pa2aga%dd9qp%db0qs%db0hht@dk3uz-svr.ampr.org
