On 08/29/2018 11:49 AM, Andreas Hein wrote: We have been discussing UUCP options. The short list is: · UUCP over SSH · UUCP over TCP (is there an encrypted UUCP over TCP+SSL?) · UUCP bag files transferred some other means. · UUCP over some sort of emulated serial connection If you have other ideas, I'd love to hear them. I expect that we will be talking about an email gateway at some point if people are interested. We already have a Usenet feed that we will be making available via NNTP and UUCP. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On 08/29/2018 12:26 PM, William Pechter wrote: Cool! Welcome! We're currently hanging out in the #retronet group on the Synchronet network (I'm accessing through irc.chivanet.org) I've personally done UUCP over SSH multiple times. It looks like TCP port 540 is reserved for UUCP over TCP and TCP port 4031 is reserved for UUCP over SSL. So, we'll definitely be offering those services inside of RetroNet. Currently the idea is to make services available inside of RetroNet. I don't know how many services will be openly available across the Internet. Primarily for security / safety reasons. That being said, I think we are planing on a gateway for things. We're certainly willing to talk about other options too. I / we would like to know more about the "over ether as serial" part. I'd think the goal would be to have RS-232 (et al) serial ports that can connect to retro computers and make things look like what they would expect to see. That being said, we will either need an RS-232 (et al) serial port on a gateway, or something else to translate from serial to likely an IP~>telnet connection. If you have ideas, please bring them and share them. Yep. :-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die

Ala DZ11 support in the KS10 emulator of SIMH ;) On 8/29/2018 2:50 PM, Clem Cole wrote:

LOL - very true, Clem. That was a shameless bit of self-promotion. From what I can tell, SIMH does not support a DH11. Yet. But when is an emulated interrupt a bad thing? Except for the idle loop that may or may not be optimized, the rest is balls-to-the-wall CPU bound anyway. And these days, even emulated, we're orders of magnitude faster than the original hardware. http://simh.trailing-edge.narkive.com/Sc9HBFZU/multiple-telnet-ports-in-sim… I recognize a familiar name in there ;) But yeah, when a DZ11 was blazing away at 19200 baud (I hacked the TOPS-10 6.03A we had at LIRICS to support it), it made the system crawl. Back to our regularly scheduled programming... On 8/29/2018 3:30 PM, Clem Cole wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Clem Cole wrote: Did the Aussie DZ-11 drivers (there were two versions) not make it out of the country? They are on the UNSW tapes, and I seem to recall a thread about this... I don't know how fast we drove them, but I doubt whether it was 19200; probably 9600 for the lucky few and 2400 for the plebs. -- Dave

Same. I've used UUCP over IP for a long time, but my German peer went away. UUCP over modem I'm going to rig in the near future, after some retail therapy, like two Telebit Trailblazer (have one already) and a central office simulator. William Pechter wrote:

If one wanted to do this old-school, like with modems ... just wondering, who still has - a wire-line phone, - a modem, - and hails from where? Flat rate local toll and long distance is fairly prevalent in the US. International long distance is a different story. How does that look like elsewhere, who has a metered land-line? Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:

On 08/30/2018 07:20 PM, Cornelius Keck wrote: I could see RetroNet pondering an additional service in the future that is effectively a virtual serial port (more below) that connects to a virtual modem that can interconnect with other virtual modems as if they called each other. I think something like this could be made to work across IP interconnections provided by RetroNet. This is obviously beyond the original ideas of RetroNet, which we want to get working first. But if there's sufficient interest in people being able to ""call each other over a (virtual) modem, then I think we should put it on the desired features list. There are a number of options that can create a virtual serial port that connects across networks. I think we can even connect a physical serial port (possibly even via RS-232 serial to USB adapters that can be connected to physical machines). So if this is something that you're interested in, please let us know. This might be a good place to ""forward the virtual modem discussion to the RetroNet mailing list. TUHS has been very gracious and a lot of people have shown interest. But we don't want to wear out our welcome. ():-) To that end, please subscribe to the RetroNet mailing list to continue discussing details about the virtual modems. Link - RetroNet mailing list - http://mailman.chivanet.org/listinfo/retronet -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On Sat, 1 Sep 2018, Dave Horsfall wrote: Hmmm... Looking at my reject log, I see this: Date: Aug 31 17:09:49 (w7V79WBG017201) from=<retronet-bounces(a)mailman.chivanet.org> relay=[208.45.186.204] reject=550 5.7.1 <dave(a)horsfall.org>... Fix reverse DNS for 208.45.186.204 Would that be it? I have some vicious spam defences here, and requiring rDNS (anything will do) is one of them; I could always whitelist the IP if it won't change, or perhaps chivanet.org if that will be the origin. -- Dave

So just a thought. A good curator, looking at you Warren, helps keep things sane. If your fun project takes off, be picky about who you let in and what sort of behaviour you will tolerate. One toxic person can chase everyone away.

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:36 PM Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote: Speaking of Warren and UUCP (and wise words from Larry here, but I'm going off in a slightly different direction). Warren was working on getting a UUCP network up and running again to commemorate the Unix 50th anniversary. I was (and probably still am) on the mailing list, but activity has kind of petered off as of late. Anyway, you may want to get in touch with him and see if you can leverage some of that work or perhaps join forces. - Dan C.

On 08/29/2018 01:00 PM, William Pechter wrote: Would those be independent VAXen? Or would they be different CPU cabinets of a multi-CPU 780? Was that 785 or something like that? This is exactly why we want RetroNet to be a walled garden. Easy for members to join and access yet separated from the Big Bad Internet™ for that very reason. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On 29 Aug 2018, at 20:53, Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote: Have you considered asking Peter Honeyman if he wishes to collaborate in the UUCP project (the “Honey” in HoneyDanBer UUCP)? Arrigo

I've read that Taylor UUCP fixed a bunch of issues with HDB UUCP - have you considered using it? On 8/29/18, Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:12 PM Ed Carp <erc(a)pobox.com> wrote: Hmmm.. the only thing it really fixed was the licensing. HBD was part of distributed in the 'toolkit' and as part of Svs V. I think it was part of PWB 3.0, as we shipped it with RTU; but we have have gotten it via the toolkit license [I'm too lazy to look at Warren's System files to check]. HDB was the huge fix of the original version that went 'wide' with V7 and BSD. The primary changes were in house directories and the queues were handled, which had huge performance impact; particularly for large sites with an heavy UUCPnet load (a.k.a. the 'Usenet'). The other things that was in HDB was some collected alternate protocols besides Greg Chesson's original 'g' protocol; although those had all been distributed on the Usenet as net.noise, so all it really did is become a packaging thing. There were a number of UUCP clones written in those days, and PC-uucp was popular for CP/M and later DOS systems that wanted to join the Usenet [Rick Adams, I think had a packaged version of some of them for his non-UNIX customers IIRC). As to why Dave Taylor decided to write another one in thoses, you'ld have to ask him; but in the end it replaced the V7 one in BSD. But a lot of effort was made to make sure Taylor UUCP was more than a functional work-alike. It had admin like HBD and use the same queues etc. What I do not remember, Mary Ann might, is if Berkeley had been running HDB from the Toolkit on ucbvax internally, but could not have easily redistribute it ( seem to remember there were). They funny part is that most Academics had a toolkit license by then becsuse they wanted HDB and ksh as a minimum, so most were running HDB; but the rules in the toolkit for academics were different than the original base license (I've forgotten them -- I had left academia so it did not effect me). But it was around this time the Keith was start to try to remove code that was knows to have AT&T copyright issues, when their was an alternative implementation that had BSD style licenses (which Taylor UUCP, as did Clark's troff as I recall). BTW Grant, Linux picked up Taylor UUCP after BSD (it was not in the original distros and I suspect would have crashed the kernel in those days if the site was as all loaded). ᐧ

Count me in. Do we need to work up a UUCP mapping project. Also... Would a pgp encrypted mail system with decryption of messages at the endpoint make sense? Bill -----Original Message----- From: Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org> To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org Sent: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:34 Subject: Re: [TUHS] RetroNet… On 08/29/2018 12:04 PM, Seth Morabito wrote: *gulp* So /you're/ the person that had the domain name we originally wanted. ;-) We actually decided that we liked "Retro Comp(uting) . Net(work)" and have registered that name. There is a wiki(…) and forum(…), but the main website isn't up yet. We are about a week into the discussions. Please join us in the #retronet group on the Synchronet network. (irc.chivanet.org) ~sigh~of~relief~ I think we would love to welcome more members into the RetroNet. As much as anything else, the idea is to build a community of friendly folks that want to play / learn / help each other, likely in direct relation to retro computing. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 02:38:20PM -0400, William Pechter wrote: Argh, argh! I did a lot of this last year. It's all on Github at https://github.com/DoctorWkt/4bsd-uucp/ We got as far as recreating this microcosm of Usenet https://github.com/DoctorWkt/4bsd-uucp/blob/4.3BSD/uucp.png before it all petered out! Cheers, Warren

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Arthur Krewat wrote: Me too, I'm afraid, but I suddenly got back into Amateur radio again after a lapse of a few year for health reasons (and my workbench has overflowed onto my dining table). It's still on my TODO list, though (I think I snared "utzoo" for my UUCP node, and quite likely will resurrect one of my ACSnet nodes for any Aussies taking part). -- Dave (VK2KFU)

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, Ed Carp wrote: If you're referring to "Amateur" i.e. "ham radio" packet radio than yes, I'm told that it works great i.e. half-duplex -> large data -> short ACK. Heh heh - I once ran *raw* Xmodem over packet i.e. not encapsulated in that protocol-from-hell AX.25 i.e. technically illegal[*]; it worked great until a packet was lost (the "hidden transmitter" problem) and the various timeouts concerned (Xmodem vs. the TNCs themselves) went completely pear-shaped... [*] Stuff the legality; isn't Amateur radio all about experimentation? But we did announce on that frequency that we were about to conduct an experiment. And whoever designed AX.25 (yes, I have studied it in great detail) must've been on something at the time... Protocol layers? What's that? -- Dave (VK2KFU)

On 09/04/2018 02:52 AM, Derek Fawcus wrote: I think similar is the case here in the US too. The key being "encoding" and decidedly NOT "encryption". Further, you must make said encodings available to anyone and everyone that asks, including the F.C.C. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 02:38:20PM -0400, William Pechter wrote: Oh, and the mailing list for my effort is here: https://minnie.tuhs.org//pipermail/uucp/ Warren

Actually, my virtual machine @Digital Ocean has been $5.25/month. Can't get static IP on my Fios for that. Domain registration and DNS via Google Domains is another buck per month... I run mail, web and DNS for $6.25/month on FreeBSD or Linux with full root control. -----Original Message----- From: Cornelius Keck <ckeck(a)texoma.net> To: Grant Taylor <gtaylor(a)tnetconsulting.net>, tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org Sent: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 21:17 Subject: Re: [TUHS] RetroNet… Do I want to reserve retronet.us? Could host that here, as I have static IPs. Having static IPs hanging of a FIOS line is cheaper and easier than dealing with a hoster.. Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:

On 08/31/2018 10:24 AM, Cornelius Keck wrote: I've actually seen / discussed some options to combine the static IP that you get with inexpensive VPSs with the only dynamic nature of some residential connections. I'd be happy to talk about details on COFF if people are interested. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On Fri, 31 Aug 2018, William Pechter wrote: I have a Digital Ocean host myself, so that I can probe my firewall from the outside (and there is a metric shitload of tools that I can use to attack it; after all, everybody else is); another reason was that I could smart-host via it, so that I don't have to use the division of Sirius Cybernetics known as Telstra. -- Dave

Cool, thx for the pointer with the mailing list! Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:

On 08/30/2018 11:54 AM, Michael Kjörling wrote: I bet that you do. Valid question. I'm of the opinion that the entry criteria are a client that can talk to the RetroNet network (more on that in a moment) and a desire to participate. I'll also say that a healthy interest / curiosity in anything that runs over / through RetroNet would be beneficial. But if you want to use RetroNet to play Doom across IPX with buddies across town, then you should be able to do so. (Assuming that you and your buddies are RetroNet members.) As for client, I'm initially targeting something like a Raspberry Pi or any SOHO router that will run OpenWRT / DD-WRT / Tomato. Ideally I'd like to re-use existing images (possibly with a different kernel) and add on packages. I'd like those to be the almost-turn-key installations. Almost as in you start with that and do some things on top. If you want to roll your own Linux install that supports the documented specifications, then more power to you. One of the purposes of RetroNet is to enable members to be able to participate and use the RetroNet for what ever they want (as long as it's legal and does not adversely effect RetroNet or members). Another purpose for RetroNet is to provide a network that we can provide a safe environment for people that want to learn things and help / encouragement to do so. Sort of like a mentor in a sandbox. Aside: I've been using the term "member". I don't want that to convey any meaning other than someone that has signed up and has a RetroNet account. I'm not anticipating any membership fees or anything like that. Down the road we may set up something like a tip jar to help cover costs like domain name subscription or other nominal costs. In short, if you want to play in the sand box and you play well with others, come on down. Let's have fun, learn, play. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On 08/30/2018 12:15 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: ***AGREED*** -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On 08/30/2018 05:42 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote: That's the spirit. :-) Do what you want to do and have fun doing it. We haven't explicitly talked about sub-domains yet, but I expect that we will be delegating <client name>.retrocomp.net to members if they want. We'll happily host it as part of the retrocomp.net zone and make changes as requested, or delegate the subdomain per standard process. We can even slave the delegated subdomain back on the main DNS servers so that you are in complete control while still hosting things if you prefer. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On 08/30/2018 07:09 PM, Cornelius Keck wrote: That sounds like an interesting project. I'd personally like to shoulder surf or read periodic updates, possibly a blog or twitter? ;-) I don't see how RetroNet can help with that connection. It sounds like you've already got a good plan in place. That being said, I do think that you could have a RetroNet … node (?term?) … at your house and then pass news feeds / email / etc over your Telebit UUCP extension. — I see no reason why that wouldn't work. If you want to do such, cool. How can I / we help? -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On 09/02/2018 04:45 PM, Derek Fawcus wrote: O.o? That surprises me. Though to be fair, I never did it that often and it was always during times that bandwidth wasn't an issue. I don't know. I will say, functionality is different than feasibility. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

Interestingly - https://virtuallyfun.com/wordpress/2013/10/25/doom-ipx-revisited/ has a good writeup on the Doom IPX issue - it was a poor implementation sending mainly empty frames. https://virtuallyfun.com/wordpress/2014/06/10/announcing-hecnetnt/ shows how adding compression to a bridge is able to eliminate 80% of the traffic. Bring this back on topic, perhaps adding optional LZO compression, but enabled by default, would be a good idea for RetroNet. --Jeff

On 09/03/2018 01:02 AM, Jeffrey H. Johnson wrote: Interesting idea Jeff. I don't know that any of the Lego bricks that we're currently using support any form of compression. We'll have to investigate. Consider compression to be on the "It would be really nice to have" list. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On 08/30/2018 12:05 PM, Donald ODona wrote: Nothing on the Living Computers website seemed even close to what I'm envisioning RetroNet to be. Would you please clarify what you're referring to? Or provide a better link to a page talking about the internetworking of individual home computers? TL;DR: RetroNet is meant to enable friends to interconnect their computers (what ever they are) at their houses to do what ever they want. One of the uses of said network is to allow people who want to learn how to set up a web / email / dns / etc server to be able to do it in a safe place (read: NOT the Internet) with help from mentors. I don't get the impression that any of that when I skim the Living Computers website. -- Grant. . . . unix || die