NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/vms/20248

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 6.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ucbvax!CU.NIH.GOV!FZC
From: [e-mail] ("Paul Robinson, Contractor")
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re:  [TDR] Off-Line Mail
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:25:47 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: world
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 157

In a message:

Date:     Sun Jan 03, 1993 12:58 pm  EST
From:     Kevin Ashley, Systems Development, ULCC
          EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
          MBX: [e-mail]

TO:       INFO-VAX
          EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
          MBX: [e-mail]

Subject:  RE: [TDR] About Off-Line E-Mail

Mr. Ashley quoted me:

KA>Some days ago, Paul Robinson ([e-mail]) wrote
  >(edited somewhat):
  >TDR>
  >   > This got me to thinking.
  >   >
  >   > One of the things I have been working on for several
  >   > months (for eventual submission to the Internet RFC
  >   > editor as a published specification) is the definition
  >   > of the QWK format for packed off-line E-Mail processing,
  >   > in which a user at a PC can call up a computer and
  >   > download his mail, and read it on the local computer
  >   > without tying up the called computer.
  >
  >
  > It's been done. It's called X.400(88).

Please be serious.  X.400 is a nice thing for computers
to implement message transfer on non-compatible systems;
it is a bitch for people to use.  The only reason someone
will use it is that there is nothing else available.  The
In+ternet @ format is a much better system.  This QWK
method does everything automatically.

I would like to note that I have *never* seen an X.400
class of mailer implemented for individuals to use for
personal mail as is done on PCs.  Yet there are at least
10 different QWK format mailers that I know of which are

all available as shareware for PCs.  Plus Megamail and
Blue Wave which are non-QWK format off-line readers.
I even wrote one, but dropped it when I found one that
was acceptable to me (OLX TD).

I will also admit that because the QWK mailer protocol
can be used to route messages, it is possible to implement
an X.400 gateway or other routing schemes for those who
desire to have that capability.  I don't particularly like
X.400 as I find it is much too complicated for ordinary use.

KA>TDR> The QWK format works like this:
  >   >
  >   > A user calls up the repository (place where his mail is
  >   > at, i.e. a VAX).  The repository collects all his mail
  >   > into one large file up to the limits he sets, say 500
  >   > messages.  It then indexes, to the nearest 128-byte
  >   > block, where every message appears, as well as converting
  >   > the mail from VMS format to QWK format.
  >   >
  >   > For each news group (conference) the system collects the
  >   > location of the start of each message by block number and
  >   > creates a set of indexes for each conference.

KA>There seems to be a confusion here between mail and Usenet
  >news ; which are you talking about ? They are similar, but
  >not the same.

The QWK format has the capaility (or rather, the repository
does) to designate a conference as "private mail" and thus
the user gets all his personal mail in one area.  Further,
QWK format permits a message to be marked as private to a
specific user.  Therefore, one can reply to a message in a
conference and send *the same* message as a direct reply to
the individual which would go to him directly as private mail.

  >   > If anyone on this group is interested in being involved
  >   > in (1) helping to write the specifications (2) helping to
  >   > write the Internet RFCs to submit this (3) writing code
  >   > on a vax to create the client that collects mail from
  >   > the mailer as well as posting mail back from the user
  >   > and routing it, please send me a note at address
  >   >
  >   >             [e-mail]
  >   >
  >   > as I'd like to see how much interest there is in a client
  >   > to allow people to read their mail off-line at their PC.

I realize now that I should have added "or comment on and/or
criticize this proposal" as you have done.  I appreciate the
criticism as it asks questions I probably would have to
answer sooner or later anyway.

KA>This is a wheel that doesn't need reinventing.  TCP
  >solutions for message stores for PCs already exist (POP)

All I want to do is collect mail from a system and post replies.
Why can't I simply upload and download mail with my modem?  Why
do I have to put expensive TCP software in my PC as well as an
expensive LAN board.  This also assumes I only want to pick up
my mail from the local computer that I have an Ethernet wire to.
I can't very well use a POP client on a notebook PC with only a
modem, can I?  Or do I have to load down my system with yet
another hard to use interface (PC-IP) that eats memory?  QWK
readers are just application programs, they require no overhead
(other than the disk space) when not in use.  They simply read
and write archive files; these files can then be uploaded or
downloaded using a modem.  No complicated TCP programs to be
loaded, or special drivers or more hardware.

Mobile computing *is* the future; this method of sending
messages requires less overhead than installing a user agent
that can only be used with a large machine or something running
with the overhead of TCP/IP.  By using the same system that is
available on PCs, if my local installation moves its E-Mail
server from a VAX or an IBM Mainframe to a Novell, I need to
change nothing and the mail is transported the same way.

QWK is relatively easy.  Messages are prepacked and compressed;
the user agent includes the ability to use its own editor or
you can use whichever one you like

KA>and the OSI solution - X.400(88) does just about everything
  >you could want a messaging protocol to do, and you can get it
  >now. (Even Digital has it now :-))

And you can bet we'll pay an arm, a leg and part of the shoulder
for it.  Software companies will not like this method because it
can be implemented *cheap* with nothing more complicated than a
file compression utility and a conversion program.  A mail
converter (Local to QWK and back) could be done with the
info-zip compressor and a TPU script, if it can generate binary
numbers.  Or simply by having a small FORTRAN or PASCAL program
to do this.

Further, even if all mail is not networked, the QWK method allows
someone to copy mail off-line and read it at their leisure.
And they can save the messages in an area individually, as
marked, or all messages.

I also picked the QWK method for another reason: it works,
it is in use by hundreds of BBS systems and thousands (or tens
of thousands) of users.  People who use PCs to do E-Mail are
generally doing this for the fun of it; if it is difficult to
use or has work involved, they won't bother.  it must be
reasonably easy to use or people won't stand for it.  It is
and they do.
---
Paul Robinson
[e-mail]
These opinions are mine alone