On 7/9/19 9:14 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 8, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> On 7/6/19 12:57 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>>> There's the MAIL-11 protocol (end to end, no MTAs) and the DECmail protocol
>>> which may be some OSI-like t
> MMDF
MMDF was[*] an MTA, not a protocol. (See also PMDF.)
--lyndon
* Is anyone still running MMDF? The last production shops I had my
fingers in that ran it was circa 1996. That was when SCO was still
a thing, and MMDF was its MTA of choice.
> On Jul 8, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> ...
> On 7/6/19 12:57 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> There's the MAIL-11 protocol (end to end, no MTAs) and the DECmail protocol
>> which may be some OSI-like thing, I'm not sure anymore.
>
> I guess I don't know enou
> How many different protocols / methods can we collectively come up with
> for how email can be transferred?
There is the old AUTODIN system, which is email before email was
"invented". I have never seen the protocol details, but there can not
be much to it.
--
Will
I'm combining my replies into one message to avoid spamming the mailing
list.
Thank you all for intriguing responses. :-)
On 7/5/19 3:28 PM, Dennis Boone via cctalk wrote:
· FidoNet (FTN)
As long as we're being silly, this isn't really one protocol.
There are a number of different ones,
Those who quibble about the ftp being a separate entity from mail
protocol would do well to look at RFC 524 from 1973. There, the MAIL
command is implemented within the ftp structure (that is, it is an ftp
command).
I've found it interesting that 524 never addresses the matter of data
representat
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 5:05 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> Here's pot stirrer for a holiday Friday afternoon:
>
> How many different protocols / methods can we collectively come up with for
> how email can be transferred?
>
> I'm primarily thinking about between servers (MTA-to-MTA
On 2019-07-06 10:53, David Bridgham via cctalk wrote:
> Obviously that message wasn't supposed to go to the list. I forget how
> the list re-writes the message headers like that. Sorry about that.
Don't worry. It fits the subject, "Email methods" ;-)
And good to hear, you're making progress on
Obviously that message wasn't supposed to go to the list. I forget how
the list re-writes the message headers like that. Sorry about that.
Dave
On 7/6/19 8:46 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
> So here's one I'm not sure anyone else will catch: TFTP has an email mode!
I knew about that one. :-) Did anyone other than CSR ever use it?
Not much airplane news. I've spent some time chasing down wheels and
brakes for the Galaxie. The d
> From: Grant Taylor
> How many different protocols / methods can we collectively come up with
> for how email can be transferred?'
Hey, this is the classic computers list, so you should only list early stuff,
(say pre-1990), and leave out all the modern crap (but I repeat myself).
S
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 16:05 Grant Taylor via cctalk
wrote:
> Here's pot stirrer for a holiday Friday afternoon:
>
> How many different protocols / methods can we collectively come up with
> for how email can be transferred?
>
> I'm primarily thinking about between servers (MTA-to-MTA). But I'm al
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 03:05:32PM -0600, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
[...]
> How many different protocols / methods can we collectively come up with for
> how email can be transferred?
I use rsync (over ssh) for transferring between a couple of my mail servers. It
is perhaps one of my favourit
Grant Taylor wrote:
Here's pot stirrer for a holiday Friday afternoon:
It's not a holiday in most of the world, including where I am, however...
How many different protocols / methods can we collectively come up with
for how email can be transferred?
I'm primarily thinking about between
On 7/5/19 5:28 PM, Dennis Boone via cctalk wrote:
> > · FidoNet (FTN)
>
> As long as we're being silly, this isn't really one protocol. There are
> a number of different ones, which can probably mostly be characterized
> as thin wrappers (FTS-0001, Yoohoo(/2u2), etc) around common file
> trans
These days Microsoft Exchange uses SMTP
Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk On Behalf Of Grant Taylor via
> cctalk
> Sent: 05 July 2019 22:06
> To: cctalk
> Subject: Email delivery protocols / methods.
>
> Here's pot stirrer for a holiday Friday afternoon:
>
> How many different
This is tedious.
-Original Message-
From: cctalk On Behalf Of Dennis Boone via
cctalk
Sent: 05 July 2019 22:29
To: Grant Taylor ; General Discussion:
On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Email delivery protocols / methods.
> · FidoNet (FTN)
As long as we're being sil
> · FidoNet (FTN)
As long as we're being silly, this isn't really one protocol. There are
a number of different ones, which can probably mostly be characterized
as thin wrappers (FTS-0001, Yoohoo(/2u2), etc) around common file
transfer protocols (zmodem, xmodem, and others).
De
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 05:09:13PM -0400, Dennis Boone via cctalk wrote:
> > · SMTP(S)
>
> FTP was used before SMTP existed.
yep ;)
>
> De
--
- d...@freebsd.org d...@db.net http://www.db.net/~db
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 03:05:32PM -0600, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
> Here's pot stirrer for a holiday Friday afternoon:
>
> How many different protocols / methods can we collectively come up with
> for how email can be transferred?
>
> I'm primarily thinking about between servers (MTA-to-M
> · SMTP(S)
FTP was used before SMTP existed.
De
21 matches
Mail list logo
