[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Recipient is offline

2011-09-02 19:25:07

--On Friday, September 02, 2011 15:52 -0400 Hector Santos
<hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com> wrote:

John C Klensin wrote:
I don't know why I didn't think of it before, but UUCP is
still available as an option, at least for FreeBSD, and
probably works just fine.  Expect funny looks when you tell
people you're using it, though...

So, to save Hector or others from writing a note, is Fidonet
in parts of the world where it is still useful.  

Cheap shot. I was all prepared to not further add to the
obvious. But if that is a question you have above:

Hector, it was intended as a complement and recognition of your
work in that area, not as a cheap shot (or any other type of
shot) at all.  We have never discussed it, but FidoNet was very
important to some work I was involved in some years ago and was
absolutely critical in getting a lot of people who were involved
in that context onto the net.   It was, and is, a really good
protocol for its purpose (and some other purposes).   Absolutely
no disrespect intended... precisely the opposite.

As should have been clear from other comments I've made in this
thread, I don't consider SMTP-over-TCP to be really optimal for
intermittently-connected server.  It is usually appropriate for
well-connected hosts who meet other requirements, but, as a last
mile (or, for that matter, first-mile if 4409 isn't appropriate)
arrangement for intermittently-connected systems that hold
actual user mailboxes, lots of other things --including UUCP,
FidoNet, and an assortment of "batch SMTP" arrangements (some
involving writing onto physical media and then transporting
those media)-- are typically a lot more useful... even if that
delivery/mailbox host then offer POP or IMAP connections for
people to pick up mail and especially if it does not.

Yes, in small numbers, and surprising that it is to us, we
still have people buying:
Its no longer developed, we do as little support as needed and
encourage user-support to help themselves.  The difference
John, is the addition of the internet layer.  So dialup is a
backup, not the main frontend. So instead of seeing a
telephone # in the Fidonet Nodelist, you have an IP address.

A very significant and important improvement, IMO.  Presumably,
if a telephone# still appears and is supported at both ends, it
continues to work.

Its a reflection of the economy and people reestablishing
their own little BBS, business and services A.K.A Mom and Pop,
Small Businesses.

Yet, I got the IBM's with Dialup Store and Forward setups in
California, Texas and I need to make a tech call very shortly.

Why Dialup?

# 1, its one way to win a fast entry contract with the feds as
# the exception to HIPAA secured internet transfer requirements.

That application had not occurred to me.  I find it fascinating
as well as worthwhile.  The other two examples surprise me less.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>