P.S. As far as I can recall I never connected my 200LX up to our cc:Mail even though I carried a 95/100/200 around with me pretty much all the time in those days.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:13 PM Gavin Scott <ga...@learn.bio> wrote: > > My recollection of the cc:Mail SMTP Gateway (that now sounds like the > right name to me) was that it was definitely bidirectional with > respect to SMTP/internet traffic. There were differences in that > inbound and outbound processing were rather different internally IIRC, > but that was pretty much transparent to the user. My recollection of > cc:Mail itself was that it was indeed a full server that clients > interacted with over a network connection. I *think* we ran it on > Netware with IPX/SPX as the client network transport in those days > (but again my memory could be faulty), and eventually got the SMTP > Gateway to get internet gateway connectivity and it ran on a minimal > PC system as a dedicated server. I seem to recall waiting a year or > more for the SMTP Gateway to finally become available. It seemed like > a rather half-assed solution compared to the Lotus Notes gateway etc. > which I think may have run as native Netware NLMs rather than needing > the kludgy PC gateway. This would all have been in like 1990-95-ish > give-or-take I think. > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 2:57 PM Grant Taylor via cctalk > <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > On 10/7/20 1:46 PM, Tomas By wrote: > > > Well, theoretically, you could have another program that emulates > > > the PO server side. > > > > I think that we have different understandings of what the Post Office is > > in older email systems. > > > > To me, the Post Office, is a collection of files that live in a > > directory structure. Said file / directory structure is then directly > > accessed by the email client. As in the email client reads from and > > writes to files, meaning that it does not talk to a program / daemon / > > service across the network. It's just that this collection of files & > > directories lived on a common network drive. > > > > > It does not need to anything other than get the mails and talk to > > > the client > > > > But, based on my understanding, the cc:Mail client doesn't talk to a > > server. It reads / writes files directly. Hence the need to have > > something else, e.g. the gateway, communicate between the P.O. and the > > rest of the world. > > > > I don't see how you can avoid the P.O.'s file / directory structure. > > > > Maybe I'm wrong. > > > > > (over PC serial port). > > > > Hum. That make make things more entertaining. > > > > Is the serial port for communications between the cc:Mail client and the > > cc:Mail P.O.? Or is the serial port how you will need <what ever> to > > interface with the rest of the world? > > > > > My understanding is that the SMTP gateway is out from PO only. > > > > I don't know. The MS-Mail SMTP gateway that I messed with was both > > inbound from the world and outbound to the world. But the cc:Mail > > gateway could easily have been different. Of course, SMTP is not the > > same thing as pulling from POP3 or IMAP. But, fortunately fetchmail (et > > al.) can act as the gateway between POP3/IMAP and SMTP to talk to > > another gateway between SMTP and cc:Mail P.O. > > > > Moving parts (read: things that can go wrong), there are a lot of them. ;-) > > > > > > > > -- > > Grant. . . . > > unix || die
