RE: [OT]: UUCP : sidenote - terrorism etc.
Interesting, port 540 is frequently sending traffic on my windoze machine,
i'm not running anything remotely fancy (besides the O.S.) and it seemed to
me like some irregular port-traffic was going on. Is this true or is it just
something not to take into account ?
on a side note, since we're talking about I-vandals, theregister.co.uk
reports that hackers in the UK are now legaly treated as Terrorists, the
disruption of a computer-system is legaly considered terrorism ...
-----Original Message-----
From: John Conover [mailto:conover@rahul.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 10:25 AM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: RE: [OT]: UUCP
I've used, (and still do use,) uucp for email for all my domains. The
Taylor uucp which comes standard with Debian, (which has a mailing
list, taylor-uucp@gnu.org,) does work well over tcp/ip to port 540,
(but be advised, if you use it over the Internet, it uses a telnet
like login-as in ASCII login: and password:,) and works well with ssh
tunnels, (from anywhere on the planet to your ISP, or home box,) so
you can use a 10.x.x.x for your remote IP, and gather up mail for
multiple users, accounts, or machines on demand, (and handles Bcc:'s
and Fcc:'s correctly.)
It is perfectly compatible with exim, qmail, and sendmail, for
receiving email for a domain of machines and users, and handles domain
addressing, (as well as "bam" addressing.)
It is a reasonably secure way of handling email for a domain, and is
rock solid-and doesn't require exposing any ports to the I-vandals, or
spammers.
Unfortunately, uucp providers are becoming few and far between.
John
Joris Lambrecht writes:
> Thanks for your corrections, i'm feeling kind of melancholic every time i
> talk/think/read about uucp.
> Maybe i should dig up that uucp manual and start playing around :-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: miquels@cistron-office.nl [mailto:miquels@cistron-office.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:51 PM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: [OT]: UUCP
>
>
> In article <[🔎] 471B774D9F9BD411B93E00508BB087A644E81B@BE020-EX11>,
> Joris Lambrecht <jlambrec@landis.be> wrote:
> >UUCP stands for Unix-to-Unix-CoPy
> >
> >I've used it nearly 8 yrs ago in a specific situation, even then it was
> >considered out-dated. I figure it's mostly replaced by TCP/IP on all
> >devices. From what i remember (did not use it since then) it's easy
(what's
> >in a word) to set up but only support serial/modem lines, hence is rather
> >slow.
>
> Hmm. In fact, UUCP runs fine _over_ TCP/IP. It just needs a transport,
> a serial line will do, a TCP connection will do too.
>
> Actually running UUCP over a serial line is probably a lot faster
> than running PPP over it and TCP/IP on that.
>
> >NFS is also one of the protocols wich started replacing UUCP back then in
> >19993/1994.
>
> NFS relaced UUCP? Hmm. That's like saying the microwave has
> replaced the bicycle.
>
> >I must add this has been a real long time and i'm not up-to-speed with
> >eventual current UUCP features/implementations but i suggest you take a
> look
> >at it from an historical point of view :-)
>
> UUCP still has it's merits, even today. The only problem is that
> people _view_ it as outdated and forget about it. So there's not
> much expertise around, unfortunately.
>
> Mike.
> --
> I live the way I type; fast, with a lot of mistakes.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
--
John Conover Tel. 408.370.2688 conover@rahul.net
631 Lamont Ct. Cel. 408.772.7733 http://www.johncon.com/
Campbell, CA 95008 Fax. 408.379.9602
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: