🚀 go-pugleaf

From: barker@wd0gol.WD0GOL.MN.ORG (Bob Barker)
Date:  Sat, 13 Jul 1991 10:52:07 -0500
Subject: SUBSCRIBE tcp-group barker@wd0gol.mn.org

SUBSCRIBE tcp-group barker@wd0gol.mn.org


----
From: "Jay Farlow WB9MDS, 72737,157" <72737.157@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 13 Jul 91 16:51:37 EDT
Subject: bilizing NOS

Mike Bilow writes:

>It is also a misconception, in my opinion, to say that we know what the
>average user wants and needs.  Hardly anyone in New England is running
>POP, and a lot of our traffic is SYN frames for hosts not on the air but
>who have mail pending.  I would like to make sure that all end users have
>the capability to act as POP clients.  That's just an example.

Er, what's POP?  Where can I read about it?  Perhaps my ignorance is an
argument in support of John's position.

I've been running some form of tcp/ip software on PC-compatibles since 88.
That makes me (by default) something of a local tcp/ip expert.  But until
very recently, I was not a regular reader of tcp-group.  As it is, I gotta
pay Compu$erve to get it (something I might not be able to continue), as I
have no other effective way of receiving the mail.

I'm currently running KA9Q NOS version 900828.  Why am I in the dark ages?
Because it's so hard for "average" users like me... who don't have a good
connection to Internet... but who enjoy using TCP/IP on the air... to keep
up on the latest.

Right now, I have connections to two other hosts, both of whom are running
the same bits.  One of them (n9bac.ampr.org) also runs a home-grown
smtp-to-w0rli gateway, through which I send and receive BBS mail.  That's
the extent of our little network... and I suspect other users and potential
users are similarly poorly connected with the rest of the tcp world.

This is why I REALLY like John's idea of distributing a "stable" (you
define it) version to the "general public" (guys like me).

Now, about this "POP"...

73,

Jay Farlow

Amateur: wb9mds@n9bac.in.usa.na
Fidonet: 1:236/10.6
Compu$erve: 72737,157
Internet (choose one):
    wb9mds@k9iu.ucs.indiana.edu
    Jay.Farlow@p6.f10.n236.z1.fidonet.org
    72737.157@compuserve.com


----
From: "James C Walker(Cap'n)" <70007.4651@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 14 Jul 91 10:33:33 EDT
Subject: Routing

Hello All,
 
Though I've worked with networks for 10 years, TCP/IP style routing has me
stumped (for now). If anyone could share their thoughts on how best to
handle this routing (telnet & smtp) situation, it would be greatly
appreciated!
 
                             kc4twu
                             44.74.1.114
                               |
                               |
        wb4wor---------------w4nc----------------al7fl-2 -----
        | 44.74.1.100        44.74.1.116         44.74.2.29  |
        |                      |                             | k4olc-3 .2.24
       [future links]          |                             | al7fl-1 .2.28
                               |
                          Joe End User
 
Due to RF paths, the dotted lines represent the only direct paths. Right
now, kc4twu tries to respond direct to an icmp request from al7fl-2 but
cannot. So we are limited to this route.
 
Later, we'll be adding regular personal (no bulletins) mail traffic.
 
What is the best way to establish routes and smtp paths between these links
?
 
Cap



----