Article View: comp.mail.mush
Article #398Re: DOS port of 7.1...
From: Stephen Trier
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 1990 23:50
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 1990 23:50
43 lines
3033 bytes
3033 bytes
Dale Weber writes:
> I'd be _very_ interested in something like this also. I've got Turbo C
>v2.0 Professional here and wouldn't mind helping in such an effort. I am
>going to see if I can interface smail2.5/PC to Waffle also, as soon as I
>get my hands on the source, or maybe that of smail3.x (or even both). I
>see this rather large archive of smail.3.1.19 sitting on uunet that I
>have been tempted to grab... ;-) I haven't seen source for mush v7.1.1
I wish you luck with the Waffle link to smail/PC! I'll be quite
interested if you manage to pull it off. smail/PC itself will be pretty
happy in non-UUPC/Mush-PC environments. All you need to do is to arrange
to call smail (actually, rmail) appropriately, and then write a version of
lmail to create the kind of mailbox you need. It should generally be
pretty easy.
In article <41660@apple.Apple.COM> dell@Apple.COM (Thomas E. Dell) writes:
>I would not recommend porting smail3 to DOS. The sources are
>huge, and an order of magnitude more Unix specific than smail2.5.
I agree. I ported smail2.5 because it was, to paraphrase the README
file, "small and simple". It was a tight fit in a PC with Mush running,
and I'm working on cutting the memory usage some more. (Deliver 2.0,
anyone? :-) ) I haven't even bothered looking at smail3.1 yet; it's just
too big to fit into 640K with Mush. Incidentally, the original memory
consumption of smail/PC was ~700K, worst case. smail/PC's worst case
requirements are around 240K, and I'm working on cutting that to 120K.
And about Mush 7.1.1, Dale Weber writes:
>but I think that too is sitting on uunet just waiting... ;-) It _must_
>include source, but would be for UNIX and need re-porting over to DOS.
Mark O'Carroll, who did the Mush-PC ports in the past, is working on
7.1. He had a 7.0 port running, but 7.1 was released well before he was
ready to release it. The word is "Reasonably Soon Now", although I will
warn you that he tends to have a very long (and very thorough) testing
cycle. Another warning: it's going to be big. I believe that Mush-PC
7.1 won't be able to fit in memory without overlays. That's not much of
a loss to smail/PC users, since smail/PC already requires running the
overlay version of Mush 6.5.
<=> Stephen Trier sct%seldon@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu
{sun,att,decvax}!cwjcc!skybridge!seldon!sct
sct@po.CWRU.Edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1990Jun6.235008.1202@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!shasta!trierReferences:
<9BRKVS5@drivax.UUCP> <wgJBk6w162w@twiki.PDX.COM> <41660@apple.Apple.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!shasta!trier From: trier@shasta.scl.cwru.edu (Stephen Trier) Newsgroups: comp.mail.mush Subject: Re: DOS port of 7.1... Message-ID: <1990Jun6.235008.1202@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> Date: 6 Jun 90 23:50:08 GMT References: <9BRKVS5@drivax.UUCP> <wgJBk6w162w@twiki.PDX.COM> <41660@apple.Apple.COM> Sender: news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Reply-To: trier@SCL.CWRU.Edu (Stephen Trier) Organization: Smith Undergrad Lab, CWRU, Cleve. OH Lines: 44 X-Post-Machine: shasta.scl.cwru.edu