i remember implementing quasi-QoS on uucp.
after having our modem pool hogged too many times by a select few users,
i put a script into our mail system.
if the script determined an email was X bytes (100k?), the message body
was rewritten with:
Contents removed at LSUC, email is not a file
It wasn't Moscow State U. It was privately-owned network (called RELCOM)
from the day one (which was in 1990, not 1987... in 1987 connecting a
dial-up modem to phone network was still illegal in the USSR), built by
DEMOS co-op (that company is still alive, by the way). Moscow State U was
one of
Jim Mercer j...@reptiles.org wrote:
if the script determined an email was X bytes (100k?), the message body
was rewritten with:
Contents removed at LSUC, email is not a file transport protocol.
and the mail was left to continue on its path.
i kinda feel like adding the same script back
On Saturday 03 April 2010 09:38:46 pm IPv3.com wrote:
What is The Internet TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
'The Internet' is a collective internetworking of several thousand autonomous
systems, using a common protocol, that masquerades as a unified whole. Whether
this protocol is 1822, NCP, or IPvX
On 4/5/2010 10:21, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Jim Mercer j...@reptiles.org wrote:
if the script determined an email was X bytes (100k?), the message body
was rewritten with:
Contents removed at LSUC, email is not a file transport protocol.
and the mail was left to continue on its path.
i
-
From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:msoko...@ivan.harhan.org]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:22 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What is The Internet TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
Jim Mercer j...@reptiles.org wrote:
if the script determined an email was X bytes (100k?),
the message
The ability to build dirt-cheap networks over crappy phone lines
and using some no-name PCs as message and packet routers was
noticed, see for example: Developing Networks in Less
Industrialized Nations by Larry Press
Heck, I even wrote my PhD dissertation
On Apr 4, 2010, at 12:18 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:08 16PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
File transfer wasn't multihop
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate
site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is
If you did some more reading this would all be come clear?
On 4 April 2010 02:38, IPv3.com ipv3@gmail.com wrote:
What is The Internet TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
Well both and neither, both of these are used and much more!
As of 2010, many people would likely answer that question based
Sorry for double post:
Also having the email account ipv3@gmail.com, thats not very useful?
This sort email address should be on the list rules like that other fellow
who was spamming about top 50 AS's for botnets/spam etc.
--
Regards,
James.
http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/
Also having the email account ipv3@gmail.com, thats not very
useful?
an amazing insight! we need an email address police to get rid of those
folk who have un-american email addresses.
randy
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:42 PM, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote:
Also having the email account ipv3@gmail.com, thats not very useful?
He's still got to reach the heights of IPv9
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
On 4/3/2010 21:36, Joe Greco wrote:
What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same
160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit Addressing last a few years ?
I must have dozed off--what is the connection between the Subject: and
the recent traffic under it.
The Internet (Note
On 4/4/2010 00:29, Randy Bush wrote:
UNIX-to-UNIX Service-Based solutions pre-date many ARPA DARPA DOD
funding programs run by people who do not write code
you're shocking lack of clue is showing
As is the lack of access to any of a large collection of books,
articles, and anecdotes.
UUCP is not a descriptor of any kind of a network in any engineering
sense that I know of. It is a point-to-point communications protocol.
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when
the transition to
UNIX-to-UNIX Service-Based solutions pre-date many ARPA DARPA DOD
funding programs run by people who do not write code
you're shocking lack of clue is showing
As is the lack of access to any of a large collection of books,
articles, and anecdotes. (Access here meaning physical access to a
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 09:57:12AM -0500, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when
the transition to DNS was taking place, the old bang style addresses
like mine original
On 4/4/2010 09:57, Jorge Amodio wrote:
UUCP is not a descriptor of any kind of a network in any engineering
sense that I know of. It is a point-to-point communications protocol.
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
for a very large network, it was even a TLD
On 4/4/2010 10:37, Jim Mercer wrote:
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 09:57:12AM -0500, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when
the transition to DNS was taking place, the old bang
File transfer wasn't multihop
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate
site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is
fuzzy on the details ...
--lyndon
On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:08 16PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
File transfer wasn't multihop
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate
site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is fuzzy
on the details ...
You could certainly add uux and
You could certainly add uux and uux to the list of legal remote commands, but I
confess that my memory is also dim about whether
uucp file a!b!c
would be translated automatically. It has indeed been a while...
I'm pretty sure it was adding 'uucp' in the commands list that enabled
i don't recall .uucp making it into the actual DNS, but i remember our mail
system used it as a trigger to do a uucp-maps lookup.
It was for a brief period of time as a pseudo-domain and placeholder
for MX RRs for machines participating in the UUCP project.
Mary Ann Horton (formerly Mark
But when I think of network I think of things like the PSTN, ABC,
Mutual, California's DOJ torn-tape TTY, and FIDO where the message to be
delivered was the focus and the internal works were pretty much
uninteresting to the user.
Read Notable Computer Networks, John Quarterman and Josiah
That the UUCP world developed links to The Internet (and FIDONet, and
BITNET and ) goes without saying. But landing you Piper Cherokee at
LAX doesn't make you part of the Commercial Airline Industry.
That's how for some time the distinction between internet and
Internet was born.
Jorge
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the
intermediate site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25
years on the brain is fuzzy on the details ...
You could certainly add uux and uux to the list of legal remote
commands, but I confess that my memory is
This is an example of the law that the number of replys is directly
propotional to the cluelessness of the post?
Bruce
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis j...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the
intermediate site(s) allowed
On 4/4/2010 12:18, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:08 16PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
File transfer wasn't multihop
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate
site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is
fuzzy on
the visibility of the path was the only thing ordinary users had to
worry about.
you forgot, and thus sigs were born. they once served a purpose other
than ego
randy
fwiw, i still run uucp for a very few remaining odd sites.
randy
On Apr 4, 2010, at 6:55 07PM, Randy Bush wrote:
the visibility of the path was the only thing ordinary users had to
worry about.
you forgot, and thus sigs were born. they once served a purpose other
than ego
Right, of course -- they had to show the uucp path from a well-known node.
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 19:01:30 EDT, Steven Bellovin said:
Right, of course -- they had to show the uucp path from a well-known node.
I remember trying to debug a very messy mail routing problem some 25 years ago,
which we finally traced back to the fact that pathalias was too smart by half,
and
I remember around 1987 when Helsinki (Univ I believe) hooked up
Talinn, Estonia via uucp (including usenet), who then hooked up MSU
(Moscow State Univ) and the traffic began flowing.
You could just about see the wide-eyed disbelief by some as they saw
for example alt.politics, you people just
I remember around 1987 when Helsinki (Univ I believe) hooked up
Talinn, Estonia via uucp (including usenet), who then hooked up MSU
(Moscow State Univ) and the traffic began flowing.
I bet that there many histories, perhaps those that didn't have access
to modern communications and vast
On 4/4/2010 17:20, Barry Shein wrote:
I still believe that had as much to do with the collapse of the Soviet
Union as the million other politicians who wish to take credit.
It's arguable that UUCP (and Usenet, email, etc that it carried) was
one of the most powerful forces for change in
I agree. I remember back in the 80s when I first got access to UseNet
and UUCP based email thinking and saying things like the net will
change the world, because for the first time people from all over the
globe were communicating fairly openly and inexpensively, and somehow
the internet and
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Jim Burwell wrote:
I agree. I remember back in the 80s when I first got access to UseNet
and UUCP based email thinking and saying things like the net will
change the world, because for the first time people from all over the
globe were communicating fairly openly and
On 4/4/2010 09:02, Larry Sheldon wrote:
This attribution line is wrong--I meant to leave only the two line below
it--for my purposes it did matter who said it.
On 4/3/2010 21:36, Joe Greco wrote:
The line above should have been edited out leaving only these two.
What if TCP is removed ? and
What is The Internet TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
As of 2010, many people would likely answer that question based on
the Services they use as opposed to a religious adoration for TCP/IP.
What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same
160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit
What is The Internet TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
None of the above. Read the instructions manual and don't abuse your meds.
J.
What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same
160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit Addressing last a few years ?
IPv6 is a loser because everyone has to carry the overhead of bloated
packets. It is a one-size-fits-all take it or leave it solution.
By that logic,
On 4/3/2010 6:38 PM, IPv3.com wrote:
What is The Internet TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
As of 2010, many people would likely answer that question based on
the Services they use as opposed to a religious adoration for TCP/IP.
See:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1775.txt
...anti-v6 religious
UNIX-to-UNIX Service-Based solutions pre-date many ARPA DARPA DOD
funding programs run by people who do not write code
you're shocking lack of clue is showing
randy
43 matches
Mail list logo
