[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Clem Cole]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1829 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org> wrote:

> It's been ages since I delved into UUCP; first was the
> ​ ​
> "original", then HoneyDanBer.
>

​Actually this is a great question for this list .. how many
implementations were created?
1.) The original 1978 version that shipped with V7 and 32/V (BSD 4.1 and
4.2)
2,) PC-UUCP for DOS came next -- I never knew how much was ripped off from
the original, because at the time, the Chesson's G protocol was not well
specified.   The authors claimed to have reverse engineered it - I will say
it worked.
3.) Honey-Dan-Ber rewrite - most popular for a long time
4.) Taylor UUCP first real clone that I know of that I do think was done
with out looking at other's source.  G protocol had been publicly
documented by then and the Trailblazer in fact was shipping with the
protocol imbedded in it.

Any others that folks know about and how well were they used?  Did things
like Coherent have a UUCP?   Linux and FreeBSD were able to use to Taylor
UUCP because it became available by then.    Whitesmith's Idris lacked
anything like UUCP IIRC (but was based on V6).   Same with Thoth originally
at Waterloo, but by the time they shipped it as the QNX product it was V7
compliant but I do not remember a UUCP being included in it.    Minux
lacked a UUCP as I recall, but I'm hazy on that has Andy's crew wrote a lot
of the user space.   Coherent was a "full" V7 clone and include things like
the dev tools including yacc/lex and was released much, much before the
Taylor version came out -- so what do they use for uucp if at all?

Does anyone remember any other implementations?

Clem
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170307/f8d811e1/attachment.html>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Jaap Akkerhuis]

> On Mar 7, 2017, at 18:17, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
> 
> Does anyone remember any other implementations?

The EUUG distributed it's own version, mainly written/maintained
by Piet Beertema.  It introduced the f-protocol.

AT&T shipped an (expensive) commercial version mainly based on
HeneyDanBer.  (Maybe just a different packaged version of that).

	jaap

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170307/b5ee4a23/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Arthur Krewat]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3002 bytes --]

I ran Taylor UUCP on a small BBS system (3 lines!) I ran from my 
apartment in Deer Park, NY, circa 1991-1994 - USENET node kilowatt

It was on System V R4 by Consensys on a 486-33 and later a 486DX2-66 - 
but some things were badly broken, so much so that things like UUCP 
weren't even usable. I don't remember why. Might have had something to 
do with the devices.

So Taylor it was. I have version 1.04 source code.

Hooked up to Motorola (mcdhup) in Hauppauge for USENET news and email, 
using a Telebit Worldblazer, and then disseminated it to various other 
small USENET nodes.

I had quite an interesting routing setup for the mail system included 
with SVR4 (mailsurr?) that would take the UUCP maps posted in 
comp.mail.maps, run them through pathalias and construct a complete path 
to every node in the map. It was the only way I knew of to deal with 
multiple systems I could connect to that would in turn also connect to 
multiple other USENET nodes. I had no definitive "smart host".



On 3/7/2017 12:17 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org 
> <mailto:dave at horsfall.org>> wrote:
>
>     It's been ages since I delved into UUCP; first was the
>     ​ ​
>     "original", then HoneyDanBer.
>
>
> ​Actually this is a great question for this list .. how many 
> implementations were created?
> 1.) The original 1978 version that shipped with V7 and 32/V (BSD 4.1 
> and 4.2)
> 2,) PC-UUCP for DOS came next -- I never knew how much was ripped off 
> from the original, because at the time, the Chesson's G protocol was 
> not well specified.   The authors claimed to have reverse engineered 
> it - I will say it worked.
> 3.) Honey-Dan-Ber rewrite - most popular for a long time
> 4.) Taylor UUCP first real clone that I know of that I do think was 
> done with out looking at other's source.  G protocol had been publicly 
> documented by then and the Trailblazer in fact was shipping with the 
> protocol imbedded in it.
>
> Any others that folks know about and how well were they used?  Did 
> things like Coherent have a UUCP?   Linux and FreeBSD were able to use 
> to Taylor UUCP because it became available by then.    Whitesmith's 
> Idris lacked anything like UUCP IIRC (but was based on V6).   Same 
> with Thoth originally at Waterloo, but by the time they shipped it as 
> the QNX product it was V7 compliant but I do not remember a UUCP being 
> included in it.    Minux lacked a UUCP as I recall, but I'm hazy on 
> that has Andy's crew wrote a lot of the user space.   Coherent was a 
> "full" V7 clone and include things like the dev tools including 
> yacc/lex and was released much, much before the Taylor version came 
> out -- so what do they use for uucp if at all?
>
> Does anyone remember any other implementations?
>
> Clem
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170307/8e4dec71/attachment-0001.html>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Jacob Goense]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 782 bytes --]

On 2017-03-07 18:17, Clem Cole wrote:
> 1.) The original 1978 version that shipped with V7 and 32/V (BSD 4.1 
> and 4.2)

 From "Casting the Net":

In 1976, Mike Lesk at Bell Labs came up with a program called UUCP—“UNIX 
to UNIX
copy.” UUCP enabled users to send mail, transfer files, and execute 
remote commands. Lesk
first called it a “scheme for better distribution” (Mini-Systems 
Newsletter, January 1977); but
only a month later it was referred to as UUCP. First designed to operate 
over 300 baud lines,
UUCP was finally published in February 1978.

UUCP was taken up widely and this led to a need for improvements. The 
next version was
written by Lesk and Dave Nowitz, with contributions by Greg Chesson, and 
appeared in
Seventh Edition UNIX in October 1978.

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Dan Cross]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2785 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org> wrote:
>
>> It's been ages since I delved into UUCP; first was the
>> ​ ​
>> "original", then HoneyDanBer.
>>
>
> ​Actually this is a great question for this list .. how many
> implementations were created?
> 1.) The original 1978 version that shipped with V7 and 32/V (BSD 4.1 and
> 4.2)
> 2,) PC-UUCP for DOS came next -- I never knew how much was ripped off from
> the original, because at the time, the Chesson's G protocol was not well
> specified.   The authors claimed to have reverse engineered it - I will say
> it worked.
> 3.) Honey-Dan-Ber rewrite - most popular for a long time
> 4.) Taylor UUCP first real clone that I know of that I do think was done
> with out looking at other's source.  G protocol had been publicly
> documented by then and the Trailblazer in fact was shipping with the
> protocol imbedded in it.
>
> Any others that folks know about and how well were they used?  Did things
> like Coherent have a UUCP?   Linux and FreeBSD were able to use to Taylor
> UUCP because it became available by then.    Whitesmith's Idris lacked
> anything like UUCP IIRC (but was based on V6).   Same with Thoth originally
> at Waterloo, but by the time they shipped it as the QNX product it was V7
> compliant but I do not remember a UUCP being included in it.    Minux
> lacked a UUCP as I recall, but I'm hazy on that has Andy's crew wrote a lot
> of the user space.   Coherent was a "full" V7 clone and include things like
> the dev tools including yacc/lex and was released much, much before the
> Taylor version came out -- so what do they use for uucp if at all?
>

Coherent came with a modified version of Taylor, IIRC. At least in the
later versions; I don't know if they had something else earlier.

Does anyone remember any other implementations?
>

One or more microcomputer BBS (Bulletin Board System) platforms had UUCP
support to bridge their store-and-forward messaging networks to USENET and
send email, etc. The implementation I remember off the top of my head was
Waffle, written by Tom Dell. Waffle later became the basis for the
"influential" (however one chooses to define that...I think they mean that
in the same way as the WeLL is considered influential) Mindvox
Community/early ISP in New York City. I'm sure there were others in that
niche, but I don't know of any off the top of my head. The whole BBS thing
is mildly interesting in its own right, more as a social phenomenon rather
than technically, though.

        - Dan C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170307/89ef7bae/attachment.html>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Erik E. Fair]

I have a memory of a "standard" collection of patches for bugs in the version of UUCP before HoneyDanBer UUCP that I think were put together and maintained by Steve McGeady (then of Tektronix, later of Intel and other fame) which effectively became a "version" of UUCP. If one wanted to run a stable, effective site on UUCP (and USENET) one applied the patches to the UUCP sources before starting up.

Unfortunately, my google-fu has not managed to find a reference or repository of those patches ...

	Erik Fair

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[SPC]

2017-03-07 18:43 GMT+01:00 Jaap Akkerhuis <jaapna at xs4all.nl>:
>
>> On Mar 7, 2017, at 18:17, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone remember any other implementations?
>

My experience was a bit weird. I implemented one UUCP bridge for
cc:Mail (Lotus) in my enterprise. More or less between 1990 and 1992.

It worked calling (using a modem) every hour to one phone number in
Madrid and doing an interchange of messages.

Very funny, with some issues with codepages, length of messages, and so.

I think that I keep yet the manuals of this application but I'm not sure at all.

Regards
Sergio Pedraja

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Dave Horsfall]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Dan Cross wrote:

> One or more microcomputer BBS (Bulletin Board System) platforms had UUCP 
> support to bridge their store-and-forward messaging networks to USENET 
> and send email, etc. The implementation I remember off the top of my 
> head was Waffle, written by Tom Dell. [...]

Was this the UUCP that was available for CP/M?  I found it on the old 
Walnut Creek CD, moved it over to my CP/M box via SneakerNet (I ran CP/M 
for years, carefully avoiding DOS/WinDoze) and it worked; it was overlaid 
to hell and back hence really slow, but it worked.

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[John Labovitz]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 401 bytes --]

On Mar 7, 2017, at 18:17, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:

> Does anyone remember any other implementations?

I ported UUCP and either B or C News to the Mac ca. 1989-1990, using the Lightspeed/THINK C compiler on System 6 or 7. Can’t remember exactly how I read news or mail — maybe I wrote a simple GUI? Regretfully, I never released the code, and don’t have it around any more.

—John

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Steve Simon]

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170310/8f1ea4b3/attachment-0001.html>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> On Mar 9, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Steve Simon <steve at quintile.net> wrote:
> 
> Maybe its the same one, but I remeber a special UUCP protocol which had its
> MTU and timeouts carefully adjusted to get the best performance across X25.

'f' protocol.  It encoded everything into printable ASCII characters to avoid triggering any PAD escape sequence. 

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> On Mar 9, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon at orthanc.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Steve Simon <steve at quintile.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Maybe its the same one, but I remeber a special UUCP protocol which had its
>> MTU and timeouts carefully adjusted to get the best performance across X25.
> 
> 'f' protocol.  It encoded everything into printable ASCII characters to avoid triggering any PAD escape sequence. 

Performance wise, it might have been the first "steaming" protocol :-)  All it was concerned about was 1) don't send anything that looks like a PAD escape sequence, 2) just send bytes at the link.

The idea was that the PAD would flow control the session, so uucico just went into dumb mode and shovelled out the bytes.

--lyndon

[TUHS] uucp protocol nits

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

So if we are going to talk UUCP, how can we not bring up the protocol, and it's beloved behaviour, in certain implementations.

'g' protocol was what everyone ran. 64 byte packets, in a three packet window.  By default.  But 'g' could really race along, if provoked.  The window could slide up to seven!  Unless you were running Xenix, where that provoked a core dump.  On most systems, increasing the window size meant binary patching uucico.

I fuzzily remember 'g' implementations that could handle packets up to 256 bytes, but I can't remember now if the basic (pre-HDB) UUCP could deal with that.

HDB cleaned up a lot of things.  While complicating the configuration files to no end.

In parallel to all this, Rick Adams was pounding the living daylights out of the BSD UUCP code. That which ran on seismo. Then uunet.

-- uunet!ncc!lyndon  (so many uucp path sigs ...)

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Dave Horsfall]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, Steve Simon wrote:

> Maybe its the same one, but I remeber a special UUCP protocol which had 
> its MTU and timeouts carefully adjusted to get the best performance 
> across X25.

And there was yet another variation ("s"?) designed for satellite 
circuits.

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."

[TUHS] uucp protocol nits

[Larry McVoy]

> In parallel to all this, Rick Adams was pounding the living daylights out of the BSD UUCP code. That which ran on seismo. Then uunet.

Where is Rick these days?  He still doing stuff?  Lots of fond memories
of that guy and that time.

[TUHS] uucp protocol nits

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> On Mar 9, 2017, at 6:57 PM, Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:
> 
> Where is Rick these days?  He still doing stuff?  Lots of fond memories
> of that guy and that time.

The last time I bumped into him was at Interop circa 1993(?) where he was orbiting the BSDi booth that Rob Kolstad was holding down.

I don't know either of them personally, beyond some email interactions.

--lyndon

[TUHS] uucp protocol nits

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

>> Where is Rick these days?  He still doing stuff?  Lots of fond memories
>> of that guy and that time.

But he did mostly vanish after Alternet came to be successful.

I was never sure about the integrity of that whole Usenet loan thing.

--lyndon

[TUHS] uucp protocol nits

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> I was never sure about the integrity of that whole Usenet loan thing.

s/Usenet/Usenix/

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Dan Cross]

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, Steve Simon wrote:
>
> > Maybe its the same one, but I remeber a special UUCP protocol which had
> > its MTU and timeouts carefully adjusted to get the best performance
> > across X25.
>
> And there was yet another variation ("s"?) designed for satellite
> circuits.


It seems that there was a whole slew of protocols at one time.
Interestingly, the FreeBSD documentation still includes a fairly extensive
description of UUCP (I guess these are really the `info` pages from Taylor
UUCP) that describe a number of different protocols:
https://docs.freebsd.org/info/uucp/uucp.info.Protocols.html

        - Dan C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170309/3ad36b6e/attachment.html>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> On Mar 9, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Dan Cross <crossd at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It seems that there was a whole slew of protocols at one time.

g:	the original
G:	a later (HDB?) SVRx version that did 256 byte packets and a seven packet window
f:	X.25 optimized printable-characters-only
x:	similar to above?
z:	Doug Evans wrote this as an alternative to 'f' back when 8-bit paths were not everywhere yet.
i:	'internet'  stream the data. 

g, G, and f, we can get definitions for easily enough I think. For 'z' I can track down Doug, but Taylor UUCP should have the details. 

--lyndon

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Jim Carpenter]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Dan Cross <crossd at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Any others that folks know about and how well were they used?  Did things
>> like Coherent have a UUCP?   Linux and FreeBSD were able to use to Taylor
>> UUCP because it became available by then.    Whitesmith's Idris lacked
>> anything like UUCP IIRC (but was based on V6).   Same with Thoth originally
>> at Waterloo, but by the time they shipped it as the QNX product it was V7
>> compliant but I do not remember a UUCP being included in it.    Minux lacked
>> a UUCP as I recall, but I'm hazy on that has Andy's crew wrote a lot of the
>> user space.   Coherent was a "full" V7 clone and include things like the dev
>> tools including yacc/lex and was released much, much before the Taylor
>> version came out -- so what do they use for uucp if at all?
>
>
> Coherent came with a modified version of Taylor, IIRC. At least in the later
> versions; I don't know if they had something else earlier.

I don't have a running system right now but Coherent 3.2 used V2
config files (L.sys, L-dev, etc.) according to my 1991 manual. A
Coherent manual with a 1993 copyright confirms that later versions
used Taylor UUCP.

My 80286 with Coherent 3.2.1A (last of the 3's and the last to support
the '286) and its UUCP was how I connected to my first ISP. ($5/month
for mail and news. Who needs SLIP!)

Jim

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Jaap Akkerhuis]

> On Mar 10, 2017, at 1:31, Steve Simon <steve at quintile.net> wrote:
> 
> Maybe its the same one, but I remeber a special UUCP protocol which had its
> MTU and timeouts carefully adjusted to get the best performance across X25.

Yes. Piet also did the f-protocol

	jaap

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170310/5efb343c/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Erik E. Fair]

The Taylor UUCP is part of pkgsrc (started by NetBSD but supports many, many Unix system platforms; see pkgsrc.org ):

http://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/current/pkgsrc/net/uucp/README.html

> The Taylor UUCP package provides everything you need to make a UUCP connection.  It currently supports the 'f', 'g' (in all window and packet sizes), 'G', 't' and 'e' protocols, as well a Zmodem protocol, the FX UUCICO 'y' protocol, and two new bidirectional protocols. If you have a Berkeley sockets library, it can make TCP connections. If you have TLI libraries, it can make TLI connections.  It supports a new configuration file mechanism.

The "t" protocol was for use with TCP over the Internet.

	Erik

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Lars Brinkhoff]

"Erik E. Fair" <fair-tuhs at netbsd.org> writes:
> The Taylor UUCP is part of pkgsrc (started by NetBSD but supports
> many, many Unix system platforms; see pkgsrc.org )
>
> The "t" protocol was for use with TCP over the Internet.

Right.  I tried "t" first, but seismo didn't accept that.  "G" works
better.

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Joerg Schilling]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2016 bytes --]

Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon at orthanc.ca> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 9, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Dan Cross <crossd at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > It seems that there was a whole slew of protocols at one time.
>
> g:	the original
> G:	a later (HDB?) SVRx version that did 256 byte packets and a seven packet window
> f:	X.25 optimized printable-characters-only
> x:	similar to above?
> z:	Doug Evans wrote this as an alternative to 'f' back when 8-bit paths were not everywhere yet.
> i:	'internet'  stream the data. 
>
> g, G, and f, we can get definitions for easily enough I think. For 'z' I can track down Doug, but Taylor UUCP should have the details. 

I have:

g:	The original protocol from the 1970s

G:	enhanced g-protocol introduced by Svr4

d:	Protocol for DataKit connections.

e:	Protocol for TCP links from HDB UUCP, similar to t-protocol.
	BSD UUCP used an implementation from Arne Ludwig.

f:	Seven Bit protocol with checksums on the entire file at a time
	No protocol flow control, but XON/XOFF
	It only uses the characters between \040 and \176 (' '..'~')
	Written by Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam, Sep 1984
	Modified for X.25 by Robert Elz, Melbourne Univ, Mar 1985

F:	flow control protocol similar to f-protocol.
	Written by Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam, Sep 1984
	Modified for X.25 by Robert Elz, Melbourne Univ, Mar 1985
	Probably created from f-protocol by Carsten Borman TU-Berlin
	or by me (Jörg Schilling)

h:	A protocol similar to the t-protocol with no error checking.
	Apparently used for HST modems.

s:	High 's'peed protocol based on the g-protocol.
	Variable block sizes 32..4096 bytes, up to 7 windows
	Written by me (Jörg Schilling)

t:	Protocol for TCP links from BSD
	Most likely from Rick Adams

x:	Protocol for X.25 links

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                  (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/

[TUHS] uucp protocol nits

[Brad Spencer]

Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon at orthanc.ca> writes:

> So if we are going to talk UUCP, how can we not bring up the protocol, and it's beloved behaviour, in certain implementations.
>
> 'g' protocol was what everyone ran. 64 byte packets, in a three packet window.  By default.  But 'g' could really race along, if provoked.  The window could slide up to seven!  Unless you were running Xenix, where that provoked a core dump.  On most systems, increasing the window size meant binary patching uucico.
>
> I fuzzily remember 'g' implementations that could handle packets up to 256 bytes, but I can't remember now if the basic (pre-HDB) UUCP could deal with that.
>
> HDB cleaned up a lot of things.  While complicating the configuration files to no end.
>
> In parallel to all this, Rick Adams was pounding the living daylights out of the BSD UUCP code. That which ran on seismo. Then uunet.
>
> -- uunet!ncc!lyndon  (so many uucp path sigs ...)


Back a long time ago, I ran OS/9 on a 6809E Tandy Color Computer 3.  The
relationship to Unix is that it was obviously inspired by it, especially
Vx where x <= 6 [or perhaps 4 or 5, the block diagrams describing OS/9
could have described the older Unix systems ].  One of the items I
worked on quite extensively was the UUCP implementation.  I didn't write
the original C code reimplementation that it used, but modified it quite
a bit and one of the items I added to it was the ability of the g
protocol to handle a bigger packet window and probably to handle bigger
packets.  At the time I dialed it into UUNET once or twice a day for
email and some very small amount of Usenet news.  This all would have
been in the 1992 - 1994 time frame.  So, ya, the UUCP g protocol could
be fiddled with somewhat and it would likely work.



-- 
Brad Spencer - brad at anduin.eldar.org - KC8VKS
http://anduin.eldar.org  - & -  http://anduin.ipv6.eldar.org [IPv6 only]

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Dave Horsfall]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, Erik E. Fair wrote:

> The Taylor UUCP is part of pkgsrc (started by NetBSD but supports many, 
> many Unix system platforms; see pkgsrc.org ):
> 
> http://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/current/pkgsrc/net/uucp/README.html

FreeBSD also has Taylor UUCP; /usr/ports/net/freebsd-uucp:

    This is a port of the Taylor UUCP Unix-to-Unix Copy Program suite
    of utilities.  This source was formerly a part of the FreeBSD base
    system, and this package is based on the final version of that
    source code, so it includes all previous FreeBSD customizations.

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."

[TUHS] uucp protocol nits

[Ron Natalie]

> 'g' protocol was what everyone ran. 64 byte packets, in a three packet
window.  By default.  But 'g' could really race along, if provoked.  The
window could slide up to seven!  Unless you were running Xenix, where 
> that provoked a core dump.  On most systems, increasing the window size
meant binary patching uucico.

Anybody remember the Telebit trailblazer modems that snooped on the g
protocol going through them?

[TUHS] uucp protocol nits

[Arthur Krewat]

Absolutely! We were talking about that earlier in the list, maybe not 
this subject line though.



On 3/10/2017 3:34 PM, Ron Natalie wrote:
>> 'g' protocol was what everyone ran. 64 byte packets, in a three packet
> window.  By default.  But 'g' could really race along, if provoked.  The
> window could slide up to seven!  Unless you were running Xenix, where
>> that provoked a core dump.  On most systems, increasing the window size
> meant binary patching uucico.
>
> Anybody remember the Telebit trailblazer modems that snooped on the g
> protocol going through them?
>
>
>

[TUHS] uucp protocol nits

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> On Mar 10, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Ron Natalie <ron at ronnatalie.com> wrote:
> 
> Anybody remember the Telebit trailblazer modems that snooped on the g
> protocol going through them?

The company I was at was one of the early resellers of the Trailblazer.  I have fond memories of hauling one out for an on-site demo for a company running some flavour of 3B2.  We hooked it up to a serial port, cu-ed out to our office server, and then I did a simple cat of a large text file to show off the throughput.

While the sysadmins drooled, a growing cohort of office workers started piling up outside the office door asking if the server was down.  The serial port interrupt load was enough to take out all the rest of the terminals in the office ;-)

--lyndon

(We didn't get the sale.  And AT&T stopped referring their customers to us.)

[TUHS] uucp protocol nits

[Corey Lindsly]

> The company I was at was one of the early resellers of the Trailblazer.  =
> I have fond memories of hauling one out for an on-site demo for a =
> company running some flavour of 3B2.  We hooked it up to a serial port, =
> cu-ed out to our office server, and then I did a simple cat of a large =
> text file to show off the throughput.

Anyone remember using cu ~%put / ~%take commands to transfer files across 
dial-up lines on systems that didn't speak uucp? No error correction, 
just blast those bytes. Binary files through an acoustic coupler modem 
were always a particularly tricky proposition. Fun times.

--corey

[TUHS] uucp protocol nits

[Dave Horsfall]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, Ron Natalie wrote:

> Anybody remember the Telebit trailblazer modems that snooped on the g 
> protocol going through them?

Not quite sure what you meant by "snooping" (spyware?), but they emulated 
the "g" protocol and went like the clappers.

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[jsteve]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2566 bytes --]

VMWare can do the standard ‘ide’/WD-1003 type interface, you either have to edit the VMX/master VMDK, or set the right ‘OS’ type during install.  Try MS-DOS or ‘Legacy OS/2’.

From my old notes:

First, edit the .vmdk file.  You are looking for the line:
ddb.adapterType = “buslogic”
And you change the buslogic to ide like this:
# Extent description
RW 16777216 VMFS “UnixWare 7.1.1-flat.vmdk”
# The Disk Data Base
#DDB
ddb.adapterType = “ide”
ddb.geometry.cylinders = “1044”
ddb.geometry.heads = “255”
ddb.geometry.sectors = “63”
ddb.longContentID = “8f535bb60df8d73a86c24853fffffff
The next thing is to alter the vmx file.  By default the hard disk will be on scsi0 and you’ll see something like this:
scsi0.present = “TRUE”
scsi0:0.deviceType = “scsi-hardDisk”
scsi0:0.fileName = “UnixWare 7.1.1.vmdk”
scsi0:0.present = “TRUE”
And what we do is rename the scsi0:0 to ide0:0
ide0:0.present = “TRUE”
ide0:0.deviceType = “disk”
ide0:0.fileName = “UnixWare 7.1.1.vmdk”
scsi0:0.present = “TRUE”
And you should be good to go.  The other (much easier) alternative is to try to use the legacy OS/2 profile as it’ll install an IDE disk by default.



Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Arthur Krewat
Sent: Thursday, 9 March 2017 10:52 PM
To: Cory Smelosky
Cc: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

If I could get the Consensys running that I used to have that would be 
great, it would be "authentic" to me at least.

However, it relies on either an Adaptec 1540 SCSI controller, or the 
standard ISA WD MFM/RLL controller (and maybe ESDI), which my VMware 
environments can't support. I'm reluctant to go into running yet another 
emulator anywhere on my home office network, so it might be Unixware 2.1 
which I managed to get running in VMware.



On 3/8/2017 7:22 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
> Which SVR4.2?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 15:39, Arthur Krewat <krewat at kilonet.net> wrote:
>>
>> I've still got my Worldblazer, and a Trailblazer that I found in a storage closet at a defense contractor I was consulting for back in the mid 90's.
>>
>> I'm seriously thinking of getting my SVR4.2 system back up and running and seeing if I can get Taylor UUCP to function again.
>>
>> Of course, I didn't make the UUCP maps until the early 90's... but still :)
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170311/e402233f/attachment.html>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Josh Good]

On 2017 Mar  8, 17:59, Arthur Krewat wrote:
> On 3/8/2017 4:42 PM, Corey Lindsly wrote:
> >On my installation, it was enabled by default. What does your
> >/etc/inetd.conf look like? Is inetd running?
> >
> >http://lod.com/sco-screenshot-1.jpg
> >
> >--corey
> >
> >
> 
> Mine too. Maybe it was a package we both chose to install? Server tools?
> 
> 
> telnet vuw21
> Trying 199.89.231.143...
> Connected to vuw21.kilonet.net.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 
> 
> UnixWare 2.1 (vuw21) (pts/2)
> 
> login: krewat
> Password:
> UnixWare 2.1
> vuw21
> Copyright 1996 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
> Copyright 1984-1995 Novell, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
> Copyright 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp.  All Rights Reserved.
> U.S. Pat. No. 5,349,642
> Last login: Sat Mar  4 09:40:07 2017 on pts000
> 
> You have mail
> Display Desktop (y/n)? n
> $

Yeah, you are both right, I was fooled by not seeing telnetd in the ps
output. Turns out telnetd is invoked throught the inetd daemon.

	$ grep telnet /etc/inetd.conf
	# Ftp and telnet are standard Internet services.
	telnet  stream  tcp     nowait  root    /usr/sbin/in.telnetd in.telnetd

And by the way, the two user limit in the "Personal Edition" of UnixWare
2.1 seems to be real:

	$ telnet 172.27.101.128
	Trying 172.27.101.128...
	Connected to 172.27.101.128.
	Escape character is '^]'.


	UnixWare 2.1 (gollum1) (pts/2)

	login: jgood
	Password:
	UnixWare 2.1
	gollum1
	Copyright 1996 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.  All Rights
	Reserved.
	Copyright 1984-1995 Novell, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
	Copyright 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp.  All Rights Reserved.
	U.S. Pat. No. 5,349,642
	Last login: Tue Mar  9 20:57:05 1999 on pts000
	telnetd: set_id() failed: Too many users
	.
	Connection closed by foreign host.


This thing was released in 1996. Obviously, with this limitation it could
not hold a candle to the emerging Linux tsunammi full of free source code.

Regards,

-- 
Josh Good

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[SPC]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2039 bytes --]

Hum... an impressive amount of messages in a short time.

I dare to ask something. Many people here appear to be interested in
put up an UUCP connection (simulating a modem connection even).
Someone even asked about a MAPINFO... In my case I want to put online
and available across my firewall a simulated Unix running under SIMH.
Would have sense to provide info for a common MAPINFO or for range of
adresses for UUCP interchange? It's only an idea. Excuses in advance
for my dare if I'm telling something weird.

Gracias | Regards - Saludos | Greetings | Freundliche Grüße | Salutations
-- 
Sergio Pedraja
-- 
http://plus.google.com/u/0/101292256663392735405
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sergiopedraja
http://www.quora.com/Sergio-Pedraja
http://spedraja.wordpress.com
-----
No crea todo lo que ve, ni crea que está viéndolo todo
-----
"El estado de una Copia de Seguridad es desconocido
hasta que intentas restaurarla" (- nixCraft)



2017-03-09 15:51 GMT+01:00 Arthur Krewat <krewat at kilonet.net>:
> If I could get the Consensys running that I used to have that would be
> great, it would be "authentic" to me at least.
>
> However, it relies on either an Adaptec 1540 SCSI controller, or the
> standard ISA WD MFM/RLL controller (and maybe ESDI), which my VMware
> environments can't support. I'm reluctant to go into running yet another
> emulator anywhere on my home office network, so it might be Unixware 2.1
> which I managed to get running in VMware.
>
>
>
>
> On 3/8/2017 7:22 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
>>
>> Which SVR4.2?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 15:39, Arthur Krewat <krewat at kilonet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've still got my Worldblazer, and a Trailblazer that I found in a
>>> storage closet at a defense contractor I was consulting for back in the mid
>>> 90's.
>>>
>>> I'm seriously thinking of getting my SVR4.2 system back up and running
>>> and seeing if I can get Taylor UUCP to function again.
>>>
>>> Of course, I didn't make the UUCP maps until the early 90's... but still
>>> :)
>>>
>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Arthur Krewat]

If I could get the Consensys running that I used to have that would be 
great, it would be "authentic" to me at least.

However, it relies on either an Adaptec 1540 SCSI controller, or the 
standard ISA WD MFM/RLL controller (and maybe ESDI), which my VMware 
environments can't support. I'm reluctant to go into running yet another 
emulator anywhere on my home office network, so it might be Unixware 2.1 
which I managed to get running in VMware.



On 3/8/2017 7:22 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
> Which SVR4.2?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 15:39, Arthur Krewat <krewat at kilonet.net> wrote:
>>
>> I've still got my Worldblazer, and a Trailblazer that I found in a storage closet at a defense contractor I was consulting for back in the mid 90's.
>>
>> I'm seriously thinking of getting my SVR4.2 system back up and running and seeing if I can get Taylor UUCP to function again.
>>
>> Of course, I didn't make the UUCP maps until the early 90's... but still :)
>>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Joerg Schilling]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1535 bytes --]

Arthur Krewat <krewat at kilonet.net> wrote:

> This is one of the reasons Telebit did the whole UUCP "g" acceleration 
> in the Trailblazer/Worldblazer modems.
>
> The turn-around time for the small packets being acknowledged was so bad 
> over normal modems that it was painful.
>
> So Telebit made the modem do the acknowledgements (IIRC), stream the 
> data over the phone line, and the receiving end would "play along" on 
> the acknowledgements.
>
> It was very effective for news especially.

If you have been forced to connect to a "traditional UUCP" site, this may have 
been a useful concept.

With a packet size of 64 bytes and max. 3 windows, the protocol was OK for 2400 
baud, but not really usable for faster modems.

My enhanced packet handler supported dynamic packet sizes between 32 bytes and 
4096 bytes and 1..7 windows. 

Given that I could update the UUCP implementation of my news-feed in the 
university, this was a better solution than the Telebit protocol spoofing.

BTW: UUCP enhancements have been discussed by many people in comp.mail.uucp
Active people in that group have been e.g.

Ian Lance Taylor	various

Rick Adams		t protocol for TCP/IP

Matthias Urlichs	e protocol. similar to t protocol

Peter Honeyman		g protocol description

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                  (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Dave Horsfall]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Arthur Krewat wrote:

> This is one of the reasons Telebit did the whole UUCP "g" acceleration 
> in the Trailblazer/Worldblazer modems.

Yep, and they ran like the clappers; I can still remember its "moose
call" when it was syncing with the other end.

Ah, well I remember the time back at Strangled Tangled and Confused, when 
we were being chipped by the accountoids for our long-distance modem 
bills; when I explained to the suits that they were actually our head 
office (bug reports and resolution etc), a couple of Trailblazers suddenly 
appeared in our respective machine rooms.

$BABBAGE, but how I've hated middle managers since then...

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Cory Smelosky]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1425 bytes --]

Which SVR4.2?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 15:39, Arthur Krewat <krewat at kilonet.net> wrote:
> 
> I've still got my Worldblazer, and a Trailblazer that I found in a storage closet at a defense contractor I was consulting for back in the mid 90's.
> 
> I'm seriously thinking of getting my SVR4.2 system back up and running and seeing if I can get Taylor UUCP to function again.
> 
> Of course, I didn't make the UUCP maps until the early 90's... but still :)
> 
>> On 3/8/2017 6:18 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017, at 15:07, Arthur Krewat wrote:
>>> This is one of the reasons Telebit did the whole UUCP "g" acceleration
>>> in the Trailblazer/Worldblazer modems.
>>> 
>>> The turn-around time for the small packets being acknowledged was so bad
>>> over normal modems that it was painful.
>>> 
>>> So Telebit made the modem do the acknowledgements (IIRC), stream the
>>> data over the phone line, and the receiving end would "play along" on
>>> the acknowledgements.
>>> 
>>> It was very effective for news especially.
>>> 
>>>> On 3/8/2017 5:03 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>>> During that "modem" time, I started with a 2400 baud modem and soon
>>>> upgraded
>>>> to a US-Robotics modem. It turned out that UUCP had several issues and was not
>>>> very effective with high speed modems.
>>>> 
>>>> ...SNIP...
>>>> Jörg
>>>> 
>> I need to pull my Telebits out now, don't I? ;)
>> 
> 

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Arthur Krewat]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1263 bytes --]

I've still got my Worldblazer, and a Trailblazer that I found in a 
storage closet at a defense contractor I was consulting for back in the 
mid 90's.

I'm seriously thinking of getting my SVR4.2 system back up and running 
and seeing if I can get Taylor UUCP to function again.

Of course, I didn't make the UUCP maps until the early 90's... but still :)

On 3/8/2017 6:18 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017, at 15:07, Arthur Krewat wrote:
>> This is one of the reasons Telebit did the whole UUCP "g" acceleration
>> in the Trailblazer/Worldblazer modems.
>>
>> The turn-around time for the small packets being acknowledged was so bad
>> over normal modems that it was painful.
>>
>> So Telebit made the modem do the acknowledgements (IIRC), stream the
>> data over the phone line, and the receiving end would "play along" on
>> the acknowledgements.
>>
>> It was very effective for news especially.
>>
>> On 3/8/2017 5:03 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> During that "modem" time, I started with a 2400 baud modem and soon
>>> upgraded
>>> to a US-Robotics modem. It turned out that UUCP had several issues and was not
>>> very effective with high speed modems.
>>>
>>> ...SNIP...
>>> Jörg
>>>
> I need to pull my Telebits out now, don't I? ;)
>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Cory Smelosky]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 895 bytes --]



On Wed, Mar 8, 2017, at 15:07, Arthur Krewat wrote:
> This is one of the reasons Telebit did the whole UUCP "g" acceleration 
> in the Trailblazer/Worldblazer modems.
> 
> The turn-around time for the small packets being acknowledged was so bad 
> over normal modems that it was painful.
> 
> So Telebit made the modem do the acknowledgements (IIRC), stream the 
> data over the phone line, and the receiving end would "play along" on 
> the acknowledgements.
> 
> It was very effective for news especially.
> 
> On 3/8/2017 5:03 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > During that "modem" time, I started with a 2400 baud modem and soon 
> > upgraded
> > to a US-Robotics modem. It turned out that UUCP had several issues and was not
> > very effective with high speed modems.
> >
> > ...SNIP...
> > Jörg
> >
> 

I need to pull my Telebits out now, don't I? ;)

-- 
  Cory Smelosky
  b4 at gewt.net

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Arthur Krewat]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 710 bytes --]

This is one of the reasons Telebit did the whole UUCP "g" acceleration 
in the Trailblazer/Worldblazer modems.

The turn-around time for the small packets being acknowledged was so bad 
over normal modems that it was painful.

So Telebit made the modem do the acknowledgements (IIRC), stream the 
data over the phone line, and the receiving end would "play along" on 
the acknowledgements.

It was very effective for news especially.

On 3/8/2017 5:03 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> During that "modem" time, I started with a 2400 baud modem and soon 
> upgraded
> to a US-Robotics modem. It turned out that UUCP had several issues and was not
> very effective with high speed modems.
>
> ...SNIP...
> Jörg
>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Arthur Krewat]

On 3/8/2017 4:42 PM, Corey Lindsly wrote:
> On my installation, it was enabled by default. What does your
> /etc/inetd.conf look like? Is inetd running?
>
> http://lod.com/sco-screenshot-1.jpg
>
> --corey
>
>

Mine too. Maybe it was a package we both chose to install? Server tools?


telnet vuw21
Trying 199.89.231.143...
Connected to vuw21.kilonet.net.
Escape character is '^]'.


UnixWare 2.1 (vuw21) (pts/2)

login: krewat
Password:
UnixWare 2.1
vuw21
Copyright 1996 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 1984-1995 Novell, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp.  All Rights Reserved.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,349,642
Last login: Sat Mar  4 09:40:07 2017 on pts000

You have mail
Display Desktop (y/n)? n
$

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Joerg Schilling]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2317 bytes --]

Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> wrote:

> Hi all, as part of my effort to recreate part of a simulated Usenet,
> I'm trying to bring up uucp, then mail, then C-news on 4.2BSD boxes.
> I've got a hardwired serial port between them, and I can see a basic

In case it is if interest...

I used modems between 1986 and january 1993 (when I started to use a self 
built ISDN adaptor that was connected as a piggy back to the Sun-3/50 or 
Sun-3/60 EPROM socket).

During that "modem" time, I started with a 2400 baud modem and soon upgraded 
to a US-Robotics modem. It turned out that UUCP had several issues and was not 
very effective with high speed modems.

For this reason, I started with the BSD-4.2 UUCP sources and created a new 
protocol that I called "s" protocol. This protocol was based on the "g" 
protocol but used larger packet sizes. Here is my comment header for "sio.c":

/*
 * High speed modem protocol with flow control.
 *
 * The s protocol was designed to be used with high speed modems which
 * have no built in protocol spoofing for the g protocol.
 *
 * The s protocol is almost the g protocol with a greater packetsize
 * and some mapping, to allow software flow control to work.
 * If the operating system is able to do hardware/software flow control
 * which is not 8-bit transparent, the s protocol will use the
 * 8-bit data path. If the data path is only 7-bit wide on one or both
 * directions the s protocol will use additional mapping in the
 * appropriate direction to ensure an overall 8-bit wide datapath.
 *
 * The s protocol relies on a packet driver with some minor changes.
 *
 * The modifications on the packet driver are:
 *      -       some minor bug-fixes, so packet sizes > 128 bytes will work.
 *      -       allow to specify transport routines different from read/write
 *              to enable the mapping of flow control characters.
 *
 * These changes will not stop the g protocol to work.
 *
 * Author:
 *      J. Schilling, Berlin 1990
 *
 * N.B.: The main code was stolen from the g-protocol.
 */

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                  (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Corey Lindsly]

> PD: Do you per chance happen to know how can I install/enable the telnet
> server on UnixWare 2.1 "Personal Edition"?
> 
> -- 
> Josh Good
> 

On my installation, it was enabled by default. What does your 
/etc/inetd.conf look like? Is inetd running?

http://lod.com/sco-screenshot-1.jpg

--corey

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Josh Good]

On 2017 Mar  7, 18:27, Arthur Krewat wrote:
> LMFAO.
> 
> By the way, that list was done with:
> 
> for a in `ls usr/lib/mail/surrcmd` ; do echo $a `strings $a | grep 
> kremvax`; done | grep kremvax
> 
> I did a strings on the smtpd earlier today looking for something else 
> and noticed right near the end was kremvax and started investigating.
> 
> 
> On 3/7/2017 6:19 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> >On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Arthur Krewat wrote:
> >
> >>Why do all these mail binaries on SVR4 x86 have "kremvax" hard coded into
> >>them?
> >>
> >>/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer kremvax
> >>/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/tosmtp kremvax
> >>/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpd kremvax
> >>/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtp kremvax
> >Now you've done it, comrade; that was the secret back door...

It seems to be something "special" about the flavour of SVR4 you are
running.

That "kremvax" is not there on UnixWare 2.1, see this screenshot:

https://s17.postimg.org/il0ehai3j/kremvax.png


PD: Do you per chance happen to know how can I install/enable the telnet
server on UnixWare 2.1 "Personal Edition"?

-- 
Josh Good

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[arnold]

Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> wrote:

> I've already registered a few "dibs".

I'd like 'gatech' if nobody got it.  I was ...!{gatech,emory}!skeeve!arnold
until ~ 1997 when I moved to Israel. I was also arnold at skeeve.atl.ga.us
with Emory acting as my MX and mail forwarder. I ran 'smail' for many
years, I might even have the source around somewhere.

Thanks,

Arnold

P.S. At the very least, it'd be fun to come back up as plain 'skeeve'.

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Warren Toomey]

Warren wrote:
> > I might call for participation
> > in a uucp/Usenet reconstruction with people running simulated nodes on
> > the Internet.

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:47:30AM +0100, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> Are modern systems welcome?  I always wanted a bang path address!

I can't see why not, as long as you can simulate a serial connection
with a TCP connection, and can speak uucp.

Cheers, Warren
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170308/40df2f26/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Dave Horsfall]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Warren Toomey wrote:

> Ah sorry, I should have said. it will all be simulated and all the 
> dialups will be simulated by TCP connections. So anybody with an 
> Internet-connected server will be able to participate.

OK - count me in, otherwise I would've have to have obtained a modem from 
ePay and hoped it worked over my fibre-optic connection...

> I've already registered a few "dibs". I haven't cut any templates yet, 
> so give me a few weeks and I'll start handing out bootable images :)

There were few UUCP sites on Oz, as I recall (we ran ACSnet instead) so 
unless there is a "famous" Oz one not taken I bags "utzoo" (Henry 
Spencer's box), and if we get USENET going I'll install C-news.

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Cory Smelosky]

John Floren wrote:
> I'd grabbed it but I'll pass it over to you if you can come up with an
> appropriate system from New Mexico :)

I'd be surprised if Los Alamos didn't have a node in HOSTS.TXT.

I'll consult my directory of computer networks when I get home.

>
> john
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Cory Smelosky<b4 at gewt.net>  wrote:
>> Warren Toomey wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:38:27AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>>>> I might call for participation in
>>>>> a uucp/Usenet reconstruction with people running simulated nodes on the
>>>>> Internet.
>>>> Sounds like fun; would this be dialup for authenticity, or TCP for the
>>>> modem-less?
>>>
>>> Ah sorry, I should have said. it will all be simulated and all the
>>> dialups will be simulated by TCP connections. So anybody with an
>>> Internet-connected server will be able to participate.
>>>
>>> I've already registered a few "dibs". I haven't cut any templates yet,
>>> so give me a few weeks and I'll start handing out bootable images :)
>>
>> I claim UCBVAX unless someone in the East Bay does...else I'll need to fall
>> back to San Jose history ;)
>>
>>> Cheers, Warren
>>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[John Floren]

I'd grabbed it but I'll pass it over to you if you can come up with an
appropriate system from New Mexico :)

john

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
> Warren Toomey wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:38:27AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>>>
>>> I might call for participation in
>>>>
>>>> a uucp/Usenet reconstruction with people running simulated nodes on the
>>>> Internet.
>>>
>>> Sounds like fun; would this be dialup for authenticity, or TCP for the
>>> modem-less?
>>
>>
>> Ah sorry, I should have said. it will all be simulated and all the
>> dialups will be simulated by TCP connections. So anybody with an
>> Internet-connected server will be able to participate.
>>
>> I've already registered a few "dibs". I haven't cut any templates yet,
>> so give me a few weeks and I'll start handing out bootable images :)
>
>
> I claim UCBVAX unless someone in the East Bay does...else I'll need to fall
> back to San Jose history ;)
>
>>
>> Cheers, Warren
>
>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Cory Smelosky]

William Pechter wrote:
> Are we going to need pathalias to map them all?

Friend kinda owes me a plotter, so I can make physical copies too!

>
> Building the maps was so much fun when
> the 8086 would run out of memory on  Xenix.
>
> Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cory Smelosky<b4 at gewt.net>
> Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society<tuhs at tuhs.org>
> Sent: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:47
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD
>
> Warren Toomey wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:38:27AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>>> I might call for participation in
>>>> a uucp/Usenet reconstruction with people running simulated nodes on the
>>>> Internet.
>>> Sounds like fun; would this be dialup for authenticity, or TCP for the
>>> modem-less?
>> Ah sorry, I should have said. it will all be simulated and all the
>> dialups will be simulated by TCP connections. So anybody with an
>> Internet-connected server will be able to participate.
>>
>> I've already registered a few "dibs". I haven't cut any templates yet,
>> so give me a few weeks and I'll start handing out bootable images :)
>
> I claim UCBVAX unless someone in the East Bay does...else I'll need to
> fall back to San Jose history ;)
>
>> Cheers, Warren
>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[William Pechter]

Are we going to need pathalias to map them all? 

Building the maps was so much fun when
the 8086 would run out of memory on  Xenix. 

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Cory Smelosky <b4@gewt.net>
Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society <tuhs at tuhs.org>
Sent: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:47
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

Warren Toomey wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:38:27AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>> I might call for participation in
>>> a uucp/Usenet reconstruction with people running simulated nodes on the
>>> Internet.
>> Sounds like fun; would this be dialup for authenticity, or TCP for the
>> modem-less?
>
> Ah sorry, I should have said. it will all be simulated and all the
> dialups will be simulated by TCP connections. So anybody with an
> Internet-connected server will be able to participate.
>
> I've already registered a few "dibs". I haven't cut any templates yet,
> so give me a few weeks and I'll start handing out bootable images :)

I claim UCBVAX unless someone in the East Bay does...else I'll need to 
fall back to San Jose history ;)

>
> Cheers, Warren

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Cory Smelosky]

Warren Toomey wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:38:27AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>> I might call for participation in
>>> a uucp/Usenet reconstruction with people running simulated nodes on the
>>> Internet.
>> Sounds like fun; would this be dialup for authenticity, or TCP for the
>> modem-less?
>
> Ah sorry, I should have said. it will all be simulated and all the
> dialups will be simulated by TCP connections. So anybody with an
> Internet-connected server will be able to participate.
>
> I've already registered a few "dibs". I haven't cut any templates yet,
> so give me a few weeks and I'll start handing out bootable images :)

I claim UCBVAX unless someone in the East Bay does...else I'll need to 
fall back to San Jose history ;)

>
> Cheers, Warren

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Arthur Krewat]

LMFAO.

By the way, that list was done with:

for a in `ls usr/lib/mail/surrcmd` ; do echo $a `strings $a | grep 
kremvax`; done | grep kremvax

I did a strings on the smtpd earlier today looking for something else 
and noticed right near the end was kremvax and started investigating.


On 3/7/2017 6:19 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Arthur Krewat wrote:
>
>> Why do all these mail binaries on SVR4 x86 have "kremvax" hard coded into
>> them?
>>
>> /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer kremvax
>> /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/tosmtp kremvax
>> /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpd kremvax
>> /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtp kremvax
> Now you've done it, comrade; that was the secret back door...
>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Dave Horsfall]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Arthur Krewat wrote:

> Why do all these mail binaries on SVR4 x86 have "kremvax" hard coded into
> them?
> 
> /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer kremvax
> /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/tosmtp kremvax
> /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpd kremvax
> /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtp kremvax

Now you've done it, comrade; that was the secret back door...

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Arthur Krewat]

Why do all these mail binaries on SVR4 x86 have "kremvax" hard coded 
into them?

/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer kremvax
/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/tosmtp kremvax
/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpd kremvax
/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtp kremvax


On 3/7/2017 5:38 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Warren Toomey wrote:
>
>> It should be easy to generate systems and their connections from a
>> template. I'll write the scripts soon. I might call for participation in
>> a uucp/Usenet reconstruction with people running simulated nodes on the
>> Internet.
> Sounds like fun; would this be dialup for authenticity, or TCP for the
> modem-less?
>
>> Mail me your "dibs" for specific nodes. Who wants kremvax?  :-)
> Or kgbvax, moscvax, ciavax, nsavax...
>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Warren Toomey]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:38:27AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> I might call for participation in 
> > a uucp/Usenet reconstruction with people running simulated nodes on the 
> > Internet.
> 
> Sounds like fun; would this be dialup for authenticity, or TCP for the 
> modem-less?

Ah sorry, I should have said. it will all be simulated and all the
dialups will be simulated by TCP connections. So anybody with an
Internet-connected server will be able to participate.

I've already registered a few "dibs". I haven't cut any templates yet,
so give me a few weeks and I'll start handing out bootable images :)

Cheers, Warren
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170308/f85bf0d0/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Jacob Goense]

On 2017-03-07 23:38, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> Sounds like fun; would this be dialup for authenticity, or TCP for the
> modem-less?

Working on getting hayes modem emulation to work with simh again. How 
did
dialing work before 81? Tricks with DN interfaces, or..?

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[John Floren]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Warren Toomey wrote:
>
>> It should be easy to generate systems and their connections from a
>> template. I'll write the scripts soon. I might call for participation in
>> a uucp/Usenet reconstruction with people running simulated nodes on the
>> Internet.
>
> Sounds like fun; would this be dialup for authenticity, or TCP for the
> modem-less?
>

I've got a serial modem & a phone line I'm not using, so I'd be
willing to try stacking my RPi on top of the modem and dialing in to
someone else... I've claimed ucbvax so I may be signing my little node
up for far too much traffic :)

john

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Dave Horsfall]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Warren Toomey wrote:

> It should be easy to generate systems and their connections from a 
> template. I'll write the scripts soon. I might call for participation in 
> a uucp/Usenet reconstruction with people running simulated nodes on the 
> Internet.

Sounds like fun; would this be dialup for authenticity, or TCP for the 
modem-less?

> Mail me your "dibs" for specific nodes. Who wants kremvax?  :-)

Or kgbvax, moscvax, ciavax, nsavax...

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Warren Toomey]

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 07:09:08PM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
> Progress.

More progress. I now have    		mcsun----seismo----munnari
with uucp mail between them all.

It should be easy to generate systems and their connections from a template.
I'll write the scripts soon. I might call for participation in a uucp/Usenet
reconstruction with people running simulated nodes on the Internet.

Mail me your "dibs" for specific nodes. Who wants kremvax?  :-)

Cheers, Warren

P.S A/B/C-news  at http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Applications/News/
    Taylor UUCP at http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Applications/TaylorUUCP/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170308/1d941445/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Dave Horsfall]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Warren Toomey wrote:

> With all of this in place, I can mail from one system to the other:
> $ echo hello | mail wkt at seismo.UUCP
> 
> and then manually do a uucp call with # /usr/lib/uucp/uucico -r1 -sseismo -x7
> 
> There are a few things to iron out, but at least thing work :)

Great stuff!  It's been ages since I delved into UUCP; first was the 
"original", then HoneyDanBer.

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Warren Toomey]

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:09:41PM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
> I tried e-mail to seismo!wkt and wkt at seismo.UUCP but it's been deferred.
> I now need some help with the sendmail config. I did play around with
> sendmail.cf/mc way back, but it never involved uucp so I'm stuck.

Progress. I had to set up L.sys entries for each system to know the other
system. Then on each 4.2BSD system I had to uucp "make mkdirs" to make the
correct directories in /usr/spool/uucp.

On the sendmail front, I edited the uucp-only cad.mc file to state the system
name and the other system name (and in reverse for the other system). Then
make cad.cf.

With all of this in place, I can mail from one system to the other:
$ echo hello | mail wkt at seismo.UUCP

and then manually do a uucp call with # /usr/lib/uucp/uucico -r1 -sseismo -x7

There are a few things to iron out, but at least thing work :)
	Warren
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170307/cf49015b/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Warren Toomey]

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:54:12AM +0100, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> I would like to suggest making an automated script to perform all
> configuration and build steps.  It may be a bit of overhead, but I think
> it pays off in the long run.

I agree, but I've got to get to a working system first!
	Warren
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170307/3432ca12/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Lars Brinkhoff]

Warren Toomey wrote:
> Hi all, as part of my effort to recreate part of a simulated Usenet,
> I'm trying to bring up uucp, then mail, then C-news on 4.2BSD boxes.

I would like to suggest making an automated script to perform all
configuration and build steps.  It may be a bit of overhead, but I think
it pays off in the long run.

A ready to go system image is great for easy deployment, but you will
not always remember how you got to that working state.

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Cory Smelosky]

I'll need to connect up to this UUCP network eventually...will poke at it tomorrow my time if I get a chance.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 6, 2017, at 23:09, Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all, as part of my effort to recreate part of a simulated Usenet,
> I'm trying to bring up uucp, then mail, then C-news on 4.2BSD boxes.
> I've got a hardwired serial port between them, and I can see a basic
> uucp conversation when I do this:
> 
> munnari.oz# /usr/lib/uucp/uucico -r1 -sseismo -x7
> uucp seismo (3/6-8:04-132) DEBUG (ENABLED)
>    . . .
> uucp seismo (3/6-8:04-132) SUCCEEDED (call to seismo )
> imsg >\015\012\020<
> Shere\000imsg >\020<
> ROK\000msg-ROK
> Rmtname seismo, Role MASTER,  Ifn - 5, Loginuser - uucp
>    . . .
> 
> I tried e-mail to seismo!wkt and wkt at seismo.UUCP but it's been deferred.
> I now need some help with the sendmail config. I did play around with
> sendmail.cf/mc way back, but it never involved uucp so I'm stuck.
> 
> Anybody want to help (and dust out those cobwebs at the same time)?
> 
> Thanks, Warren 

[TUHS] Help request: uucp, mail on 4.2BSD

[Warren Toomey]

Hi all, as part of my effort to recreate part of a simulated Usenet,
I'm trying to bring up uucp, then mail, then C-news on 4.2BSD boxes.
I've got a hardwired serial port between them, and I can see a basic
uucp conversation when I do this:

munnari.oz# /usr/lib/uucp/uucico -r1 -sseismo -x7
uucp seismo (3/6-8:04-132) DEBUG (ENABLED)
	. . .
uucp seismo (3/6-8:04-132) SUCCEEDED (call to seismo )
imsg >\015\012\020<
Shere\000imsg >\020<
ROK\000msg-ROK
 Rmtname seismo, Role MASTER,  Ifn - 5, Loginuser - uucp
	. . .

I tried e-mail to seismo!wkt and wkt at seismo.UUCP but it's been deferred.
I now need some help with the sendmail config. I did play around with
sendmail.cf/mc way back, but it never involved uucp so I'm stuck.

Anybody want to help (and dust out those cobwebs at the same time)?

Thanks, Warren 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170307/bf296513/attachment.sig>