INFO-VAX Mon, 22 Jan 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 43 Contents: Re: How long to really setup a VMS system ? RE: How long to really setup a VMS system ? Re: Looking for SSH enabled DEC/COMPAQ TCPIP for OpenVMS Alpha 7.2 Re: Looking for SSH enabled DEC/COMPAQ TCPIP for OpenVMS Alpha 7.2 Re: TCPIP 5.x- SMTP server behavior on 4xx error (greylisting) Re: VMS product registration Re: VMS product registration Re: Waiting for Hobbyist Licenses ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:39:10 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: How long to really setup a VMS system ? Message-ID: <45b3fa1c$0$8755$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Main, Kerry wrote: > The same could be said for any OS platform i.e. if you configure from scratch with no knowledge of LP's location, then you could be quite a while setting that system up. Please fix your client to wrap lines. And yes, this issue is valid for any OS. The big difference is how much is bundled with the OS platform. For instance, MAC OS comes with a whole lot of stuff that is not part of the VMS installation procedure. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:52:07 -0500 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: How long to really setup a VMS system ? Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca]=20 > Sent: January 21, 2007 6:39 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: How long to really setup a VMS system ? >=20 > Main, Kerry wrote: > > The same could be said for any OS platform i.e. if you=20 > configure from scratch with no knowledge of LP's location,=20 > then you could be quite a while setting that system up.=20 >=20 > Please fix your client to wrap lines. >=20 Client is already set to wrap text files at 75 characters. > And yes, this issue is valid for any OS. The big difference=20 > is how much is=20 > bundled with the OS platform. For instance, MAC OS comes with=20 > a whole lot=20 > of stuff that is not part of the VMS installation procedure. >=20 Mmmm.. Are you saying that the bigger the OS, the better it is?=20 Hey - that must mean Windows is the best OS of all!!=20 Who cares about code bloat eh?=20 Perhaps there are those that do not want everything installed be default? :-) Regards ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:27:02 -0700 From: Dan O'Reilly Subject: Re: Looking for SSH enabled DEC/COMPAQ TCPIP for OpenVMS Alpha 7.2 Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20070121122353.02b98f18@192.168.0.11> At 08:14 AM 1/21/2007, Hkz wrote: >Hi to everyone, >I'm looking for a version of COMPAQ TCP/IP suite for Alpha systems >with support of the SSH protocol, and capable of running on OpenVMS 7.2 >(does it even exists?). >I'm aware of TCPware but i'd prefer to use something covered by the normal >hobbyist licenses. TCPware and MultiNet both have hobbyist licenses. >We need ssh to setup some internet "gateways" of our >hobbyist DECnet, and the use of telnet over potentially dangerous networks >to let users login is not an option... Of course we could use >linux/unix/somethingelse gateways, but that's not really nice too :P > >PS >I'd need a version of ucx compatible with vms 5.5-2 for an old vax too... >someone got one around? The latest versions of TCPware and MultiNet both support 5.5 and higher on VAX, 6.2 and higher on AXP and I64 all versions. In other words, you can handle all of your requirements with a single version of TCPware or MultiNet, with a singe distribution, and not have to worry about differences between the TCP/IP stacks on your various machines. ------ +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | Dan O'Reilly | "There are 10 types of people in this | | Principal Engineer | world: those who understand binary | | Process Software | and those who don't." | | http://www.process.com | | +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:32:52 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Looking for SSH enabled DEC/COMPAQ TCPIP for OpenVMS Alpha 7.2 Message-ID: Hkz wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 09:30:15 -0600, Steven M. Schweda wrote: > > > >> What's "normal" to you? If you need software from Process Software, >>you might need to get a (free, hobbyist) license from Process Software. >>Is this abnormal? >> > > I should have said "licenses from decus". That's because some people in > our hobbyist network don't want to order separate licenses and wait extra > time for 3rd party software. And because tcp/ip from dec/compaq/hp exists > we simply ask if someone is willing to share a version with ssh support. > > >> Why VMS V7.2? > > That depends. In my case i simply got only vms 7.2 for vax and alpha > machine and don't want to lose 2 days downloading another version (not > every place in the world has got broadband) or extra money buying it, but > someone else might like keeping their systems more close to "DEC" as > possibile (with the exception of tcp/ip :-) ...), and don't like the > COMPAQ branding in newer versions. > > >> I seem to have a March 1993 ConDist CD-ROM with TCPIP V2.0B (and VMS >>V5.5-2), and a Setember 1994 ConDist CD-ROM with TCPIP V3.1 (and VMS >>V6.1, but it should work with VMS V5.5-2). > If anybody believes that, I can get him a real steal of a deal on a well known bridge in New York City. Yes, I mean the Brooklyn Bridge! UCX (as it was then known) V3.1 was supported on VMS V5.5-2 and perhaps V5.4 and MAYBE even V5.3. To say that it worked is really stretching!! SMTP was a nightmare! BIND was not too great either. If you are going to use UCX on V5.5-2 don't even think about any version before V3.3 ECO-14. If you do, you'll regret it later. If there IS a later!!!!! V4.0 might be tolerable. V4.1 would be better!!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:11:53 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: TCPIP 5.x- SMTP server behavior on 4xx error (greylisting) Message-ID: <45b455e7$0$9482$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> DeanW wrote: >> Under TCPIP 5.4, a 450 error is taken as a permanent failure and the > message is bounced. Is there any way to configure this behavior? I have just made a test on Alpha 8.3 with TCPIP Services 5.6 and am happy to report that the symbiont now behaves properly with a 450 message. I had not seen mention of this in the release notes. Perhaps the programmers were too ashamed of the original behaviour and prefered to slip this under the rug rather than admit to the previous behaviour :-) send buf=RCPT TO:\0d\0a recv buf=450 try later\0d\0a send buf=QUIT\0d\0a recv buf=221 kitchen.chocolate.ca end\0d\0a send buf= smtp_sender_close sclose R0 status = -1, errno = 9, vaxc$errno = 3506252 Printing debug_level 2, Domains and recipients: Domain: nose.cs.utoronto.ca Recipient address: chef@chocolate.ca Domain part: chocolate.ca Local part: chef Address Status: Not done, not delivered. (Requeued) And the message is truly requeued for an attempt 30 minutes later. Many thanks to "Norman" for giving me a detailed opportunity to test this behaviour on his unix SMTP software running on a MV III. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:45:29 -0600 (CST) From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) Subject: Re: VMS product registration Message-ID: <07012115452923_2020028F@antinode.org> > From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) Oops. Wrong forum. Don't mind me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-org 382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818 Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 2007 14:58:27 -0800 From: "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" Subject: Re: VMS product registration Message-ID: <1169420307.668958.197200@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com> Steven M. Schweda wrote: > > From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) > > Oops. Wrong forum. Don't mind me. > My dear Mr SMS, We almost never mind you. ;-) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 2007 14:55:51 -0800 From: "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" Subject: Re: Waiting for Hobbyist Licenses Message-ID: <1169420151.790695.61550@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Siggi Baumeister wrote: > Is there any problem with the hobbyist lics? The Montagar server nods my > request through, but the rest is silence. > Ziggy Assuming you got the message that your request had been accepted then usually it is only minutes before the email is received. There have been times though that it has taken an hour or so when the mail server is swamped with incoming spam. I've never had my membership information rejected so I don't know how that is handled, but I assume it would be obvious if that were the case. First thing to check is your spam bucket to make sure it wasn't accidentally filtered out. If nothing there, then try again. Every once in a while the process breaks down. If you don't get anything after an hour or so then send an e-mail to the Montagar web master and let him know the details. John H. Reinhardt ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.043 ************************