7 Mar
2017
7 Mar
'17
1:09 p.m.
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(a)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
7 Mar
7 Mar
1:11 p.m.
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(a)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(a)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
1:54 p.m.
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.
2:27 p.m.
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
3:09 p.m.
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:09:41PM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
I tried e-mail to seismo!wkt and wkt(a)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(a)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
9:23 p.m.
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(a)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."
8 Mar
8 Mar
2:43 a.m.
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/
4:38 a.m.
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."
4:45 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Warren Toomey wrote:
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
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?
4:58 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:38:27AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
I might call for participation in
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
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?
5:46 a.m.
Warren Toomey wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:38:27AM +1100, Dave
Horsfall wrote:
I claim UCBVAX unless someone in the East Bay does...else I'll need to
fall back to San Jose history ;)
I might call for participation in
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 :) 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?
Cheers, Warren
5:54 a.m.
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(a)gewt.net>
Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society <tuhs(a)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 claim UCBVAX unless someone in the East Bay does...else I'll need to
fall back to San Jose history ;)
I might call for participation in
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 :) 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?
Cheers, Warren
5:55 a.m.
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(a)gewt.net>
Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society<tuhs(a)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 claim UCBVAX unless someone in the East Bay does...else I'll need to
fall back to San Jose history ;)
I might call for participation in
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 :) 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? Cheers, Warren
6:03 a.m.
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(a)gewt.net> wrote:
Warren Toomey wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:38:27AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
I claim UCBVAX unless someone in the East Bay does...else I'll need to fall
back to San Jose history ;)
I might call for participation in
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 :)
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?
Cheers, Warren
6:05 a.m.
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(a)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
>
10:05 a.m.
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."
4:21 p.m.
Warren Toomey <wkt(a)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(a)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'.
5:14 a.m.
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...
5:19 a.m.
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."
5:27 a.m.
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...
9 Mar
9 Mar
3:20 a.m.
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
3:42 a.m.
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
4:59 a.m.
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
$
10 Mar
10 Mar
2:26 a.m.
On 2017 Mar 8, 17:59, Arthur Krewat wrote:
On 3/8/2017 4:42 PM, Corey Lindsly wrote:
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
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
$
8 Mar
8 Mar
3:20 p.m.
New subject: UUCP: working systems, come and get them
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 06:43:07AM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
More progress. I now have
mcsun----seismo----munnari
with uucp mail between them all.
Even more progress. I wrote a script to generate the uucp systems,
and given it a rough test. It's now here:
https://github.com/DoctorWkt/4bsd-uucp
and ready for people to download and try things out. I'm happy for
people to make changes, by adding them in as contributors.
We should add a file with uucp names, owners and connection details.
I'll do that soon.
Have at it!
Warren
9 Mar
9 Mar
4:16 a.m.
New subject: UUCP: working systems, come and get them
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:20:52PM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
The list of people and sites they have chosen is at
https://github.com/DoctorWkt/4bsd-uucp/blob/master/uucp_sites.txt
I've just set up "seismo" at simh.tuhs.org:5000, if anybody wants a
remote site to connect to. E-mail me your site and IP details.
Cheers, Warren
4:31 a.m.
New subject: UUCP: working systems, come and get them
I'm surprised no-one's taken decvax, ihnp4, cbosgd...
...!utzoo!dave[.UUCP] one day...
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will
suffer."
11 Mar
11 Mar
6:14 a.m.
New subject: UUCP: working systems, come and get them
Please save cbosgd for me. It may be awhile before I get around to
doing anything with it.
There was never a cbosgd!mah, but now I have a shot at it :)
Mary Ann
On 2017-03-08 14:31, Dave Horsfall wrote:
I'm surprised no-one's taken decvax, ihnp4,
cbosgd...
...!utzoo!dave[.UUCP] one day...
9 Mar
9 Mar
4:33 a.m.
New subject: UUCP: working systems, come and get them
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 08:16:45AM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
The list of people and sites they have chosen is at
https://github.com/DoctorWkt/4bsd-uucp/blob/master/uucp_sites.txt
I don't see kremvax listed. If nobody else will, I'll operate a kremvax
installation.
khm
12:36 p.m.
New subject: UUCP: working systems, come and get them
Kurt H Maier <khm(a)sciops.net> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 08:16:45AM +1000, Warren
Toomey wrote:
Ahem - my name is Arnold Robbins - my domain is "Skeeve" ... :-)
Please fix the file.
Arnold
The list of people and sites they have chosen is at
https://github.com/DoctorWkt/4bsd-uucp/blob/master/uucp_sites.txt
I don't see kremvax listed. If nobody else will, I'll operate a kremvax
installation.
khm
7:02 p.m.
New subject: UUCP: working systems, come and get them
Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org> writes:
The list of people and sites they have chosen is at
https://github.com/DoctorWkt/4bsd-uucp/blob/master/uucp_sites.txt
I've just set up "seismo" at simh.tuhs.org:5000, if anybody wants a
remote site to connect to. E-mail me your site and IP details.
I'd like to join this network, but I don't know how to configure a UUCP
site. I'm using Taylor UUCP 1.07. I can probably figure things out
eventually but if someone has any hints, that would be helpful.
I'm looking to use TCP and protocol T, but I don't know if that's
appropriate.
10 Mar
10 Mar
7:49 a.m.
New subject: UUCP: working systems, come and get them
I've now got it working and it made me think a little.
In order to do these "serial ports over TCP" things, we basically are
putting login prompts out to the Internet. Is it possible to restrict
things so the only user allowed on ttyN is 'uucp', or should I just
put in iptables rules to only allow traffic from my UUCP peers?
john
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 06:43:07AM +1000, Warren
Toomey wrote:
More progress. I now have
mcsun----seismo----munnari
with uucp mail between them all.
Even more progress. I wrote a script to generate the uucp systems,
and given it a rough test. It's now here:
https://github.com/DoctorWkt/4bsd-uucp
and ready for people to download and try things out. I'm happy for
people to make changes, by adding them in as contributors.
We should add a file with uucp names, owners and connection details.
I'll do that soon.
Have at it!
Warren
8:06 a.m.
New subject: UUCP: working systems, come and get them
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 06:49:45PM -0700, John Floren wrote:
I've now got it working and it made me think a
little.
In order to do these "serial ports over TCP" things, we basically are
putting login prompts out to the Internet. Is it possible to restrict
things so the only user allowed on ttyN is 'uucp', or should I just
put in iptables rules to only allow traffic from my UUCP peers?
Yes, I'm trying to work on that. There is a way set some DZ lines
to listen on port Y and the others on port X.
sim> ATTACH DZ X,Line=3,Y,line=4,Z
But there isn't a way to bind to localhost AFAICT. So we should be able to
run uucico only on certain /dev/tty lines, but this still will require
you to iptables block the other port.
Unless someone has a way to bind simh DZ lines to localhost?
Cheers, Warren
8:09 a.m.
New subject: UUCP: working systems, come and get them
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017, at 18:06, Warren Toomey wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 06:49:45PM -0700, John Floren
wrote:
sim> att dz -m 127.0.0.1:5000
Listening on port 127.0.0.1:5000
Modem control activated
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
Connected to the VAX 11/780 simulator DZ device, line 1
[root@lethe] ~# telnet 10.12.10.1 5000
Trying 10.12.10.1...
telnet: connect to address 10.12.10.1: Connection refused
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host
I've now got it working and it made me think
a little.
In order to do these "serial ports over TCP" things, we basically are
putting login prompts out to the Internet. Is it possible to restrict
things so the only user allowed on ttyN is 'uucp', or should I just
put in iptables rules to only allow traffic from my UUCP peers?
Yes, I'm trying to work on that. There is a way set some DZ lines
to listen on port Y and the others on port X.
sim> ATTACH DZ X,Line=3,Y,line=4,Z
But there isn't a way to bind to localhost AFAICT. So we should be able
to
run uucico only on certain /dev/tty lines, but this still will require
you to iptables block the other port.
Unless someone has a way to bind simh DZ lines to localhost?
Cheers, Warren
Email had 1 attachment:
+ signature.asc
1k (application/pgp-signature)
--
Cory Smelosky
b4(a)gewt.net
6:25 p.m.
New subject: UUCP: working systems, come and get them
I would put some kind of firewall in front of it, If even to restrict source addressed to
well known. There is a LOT of people scanning the internet. I also have a publicly
available FTP server and I'll see it on lists of known boxes etc.
On March 10, 2017 9:49:45 AM GMT+08:00, John Floren <john(a)jfloren.net> wrote:
I've now got it working and it made me think a
little.
In order to do these "serial ports over TCP" things, we basically are
putting login prompts out to the Internet. Is it possible to restrict
things so the only user allowed on ttyN is 'uucp', or should I just
put in iptables rules to only allow traffic from my UUCP peers?
john
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 06:43:07AM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
>> More progress. I now have mcsun----seismo----munnari
>> with uucp mail between them all.
>
> Even more progress. I wrote a script to generate the uucp systems,
> and given it a rough test. It's now here:
>
> https://github.com/DoctorWkt/4bsd-uucp
>
> and ready for people to download and try things out. I'm happy for
> people to make changes, by adding them in as contributors.
>
> We should add a file with uucp names, owners and connection details.
> I'll do that soon.
>
> Have at it!
> Warren
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
11:50 p.m.
New subject: UUCP: working systems, come and get them
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Jason Stevens
<jsteve(a)superglobalmegacorp.com> wrote:
I would put some kind of firewall in front of it, If
even to restrict source
addressed to well known. There is a LOT of people scanning the internet. I
also have a publicly available FTP server and I'll see it on lists of known
boxes etc.
That's the plan. I now have lanl-a and unmvax up and talking to each
other. If anyone would like to set up a bi-directional connection with
lanl-a, contact me off-list and I'll put you in my firewall / add a
serial connection to you. I'll try to get C-News going soon too.
john
11 Mar
11 Mar
3:38 a.m.
New subject: UUCP: working systems, come and get them
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 08:25:25PM +0800, Jason Stevens wrote:
I've now got it working and it made me think a
little.
In order to do these "serial ports over TCP" things, we basically are
putting login prompts out to the Internet. Is it possible to restrict
things so the only user allowed on ttyN is 'uucp', or should I just
put in iptables rules to only allow traffic from my UUCP peers?
john
Use the 4.3BSD branch. In these systems, I've set the serial ports
as insecure in /etc/ttys, so people can't login as root. Then, remove
all users from the password file (with vipw) except root and uucp. Or,
keep one non-root user for you to login as.
If you leave vax780 running in 'screen', you can still login as root there.
Cheers, Warren
9 Mar
9 Mar
4:03 a.m.
Warren Toomey <wkt(a)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@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schilling(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/
5:07 a.m.
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
5:18 a.m.
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:
I need to pull my Telebits out now, don't I? ;)
--
Cory Smelosky
b4(a)gewt.net
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
5:39 a.m.
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? ;)
6:22 a.m.
Which SVR4.2?
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 8, 2017, at 15:39, Arthur Krewat
<krewat(a)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? ;)
8:51 p.m.
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(a)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
:)
>
11:53 p.m.
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(a)kilonet.net>et>:
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(a)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
> :)
>
11 Mar
11 Mar
11:29 a.m.
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(a)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(a)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
:)
>
9 Mar
9 Mar
7:59 a.m.
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."
3:30 p.m.
Arthur Krewat <krewat(a)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@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schilling(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/
2618
days inactive
2622
days old
47 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
arnold＠skeeve.com -
Arthur Krewat -
corey＠lod.com -
Cory Smelosky -
Dave Horsfall -
Jacob Goense -
Jason Stevens -
John Floren -
Josh Good -
jsteve＠superglobalmegacorp.com
-
Kurt H Maier -
Lars Brinkhoff -
Mary Ann Horton -
schily＠schily.net -
SPC -
Warren Toomey -
William Pechter