Columbia Kermit/kermit.zip/newsgroups/misc.20000114-20000217/[e-mail] _Mon Jan 17 16:55:54 2000.msg

Internet Message Format | 2020-01-01 | 5KB

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.30])
    by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA22990
    for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:55:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from news@localhost)
    by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA21794
    for [e-mail]; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:52:00 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu: news set sender to <news> using -f
From: [e-mail] (Christoph Weber-Fahr)
Subject: Re: MS-DOS Kermit, more capabalities
Date: 17 Jan 2000 21:38:05 GMT
Organization: Universitaet Kaiserslautern
Message-ID: <86023t$na8$[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

Hi,

[e-mail] writes:

>Subsequently to *MY* original post of January 1st, about "MS-DOS Kermit,
>more capabalities", i'm posting about the very SAME THING here, *AGAIN*,
>because i didn't seem to succeed in making myself clearly understood the
>first time...  (Or maybe i was but divergent temptations were at work)!

Hm....

Maybe, Just Maybe... you didn't like the answers ? I thinkk there were.

[...]
>We do get the distinct impression here that the `MS-Kermit' Beta team is
>out of town...  Here's one easy question:  is it the case or what?!  8^o
>N.B.:  a short *YES* or *NO* reply will suffice on that one...  Euh...

Give the abundance of Joe Doupnik's postings here (who essentially
_is_ the MSKermit Team) I fail to see your point.


>This comment about clearing variables

[...]

Just separate your postings. Focus on one problem per posting.
Additional stuff tends to get lost in the debate.

Ah.. and structure your posting. Think of the newsgroup as an audience.

>In hope that i still can hope for a direct and HONEST reply, i will now
>re-introduce myself and ask my questions again.  I'm a DOS_InterNet user
>who spent about the last 2 years lurking/participating to the same-name
>echo of the `FidoNet' amateur messaging network.

Yo.

>Since the last four years or so i looked for DOS INet FreeWare/ShareWare
>programs in hope that i'd get my hands on some piece of software which
>can be run even on a *  M I N I M U M   S E T U P  *, meaning:

>- 8088 4,77 Mhz ~CPU~
>- 640 Kb ~RAM~ memory (512 Kb if possible!)
>- No Hard-Disk
>- Two 5.25"/360 Kb diskette drives or a single 3.5"/720 Kb unit
>- A crude 8250 ~UART~ serial-port
>- A V.42Bis MoDem or better (i tied up an external 56K MoDem to a 8088!)
>- DOS v3.3 (v3.0 compatibility would be fine but not required)

>[...]

This is understandable and a certainly fascinating hobby. But please
understand why people write software like this... because they have a
need for it.

Given that you can get 386 and lowly 486 machines for free all over the place
these days, most people have moved at least there.

And there's Linux. And FreeBSD. And OS/2. Whatever.

So you are essentially forced to rely on what was there when DOS ruled
the day. And in these days most folks didn't have ppp account. Actually,
PPP surfaced long after DOS already ruled the world.

Back then, in the days when few selected people had dialup internet access,
mostly via their University or the two or three commercial internet
providers around (netcom, uunet), everybody was having shell accounts he
used like a normal BBS.

For these, there are loads of Software. My personal favourite
is Stratory Systems (sp?) Terminate. But there are piles of others.

You just can't get PPP.

for PPP, you should look at the usual TCPIP packages. Most notably
Novell's Lan Workplace (is that still for sale) or FTP's (who owns them
now ?) PC/TCP. Maybe you can find a used copy somewhere.

But of course you don't find ZModem there. Back then, it would have been
considered strange to access a BBS via dialup PPP.

>I still have the same three topics in mind today:


>*1*

>I am trying to have some working `ZMoDem' and/or `Kermit' file transfer
>protocols for when accessing ~TelNet~ BBSes.


Three words:
a MMU (which lets you run Linux or FreeBSD) and is part of the intel
   architecture from '386 on
minicom
rz/sz

>*2*

>I discovered that i could access my ~SMTP~ server on ~IP~ port #25 but
>`Kermit' is the only program not to allow me such access if i try!  Why?

Of course you have a point here. MSkermit's (or Joe's) refusal
to unblock them has - as far as I can see - not succeeded to free the
world from fake mail.

Around '92 or so, I tried to discuss the thing with him. But I quickly
learned that it made his life easier to block these ports - and so
he did. As he wrote this thing, who was I to determine otherwise ?
Who are you ?

You can read mail, e.g.,with David Harris' Pegasus Mail for DOS just fine.
It even has a POP3 module somewhere on the net. You are not supposed
to telnet to port 25. Your Mail Software is.

[...a few imprsessive Examples of kermit script usage deleted...]

If you absolutely must read news under DOS, just go searching for Peter
Tattam's Trumpet Newsreader. There used to be a DOS version.

Regards

Christoph Weber-Fahr

--
  Christoph Weber-Fahr                  |  E-Mail:  [e-mail]
--------------------------  My personal opinion only    ---------------------