From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Apr 26 19:23:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA23768 for isp-outgoing; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 19:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from buffnet4.buffnet.net (buffnet4.buffnet.net [205.246.19.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA23763 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 19:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from buffnet7.buffnet.net (shovey@buffnet7.buffnet.net [205.246.19.28]) by buffnet4.buffnet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA18468; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 22:22:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 22:22:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Stephen Hovey To: "Jay D. Nelson" cc: spork , Bill Grunfelder , freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMTP gateway clients In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk They said, and I quote - "Im not spending $1000 on a new gateway just to make up for your deficiencies." So actually I dont know why I give a flip. On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, Jay D. Nelson wrote: > I may be too dense, but I don't understand what `dial up' SMTP gains over > UUCP -- except the added IP overhead. Am I missing something or does your > customer just have a burr under the blanket? > > -- Jay > > On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, Steve wrote: > > ->On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, spork wrote: > -> > ->> I remember we hacked it with two by having one default through the > ->> other... It worked, but the one acting as the gateway for the other was > ->> not very happy... > ->> > ->> Please post your solution, as Annexes amuse me to no end. They are such > ->> evil little boxes. I've also heard (not a routing expert) that RIP v2 > ->> updates on any change, which would solve the problem assuming the Annex > ->> can do v2... > -> > ->They do rip2, but it doesnt apparently work. One person sent me a > ->possible solution. Using 1 class C for the annex ethernet cards, and the > ->static IPs so that the ethernet cards would proxy arp them. Then another > ->class C for the dynamic ones assigned to modems, then static routes in > ->ones cisco to assist the world in finding the non-statics. > -> > ->I think I will tell the 1 or 2 people who want smtp to buy uucp or hike. > -> > ->> > ->> Charles > ->> > ->> On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Bill Grunfelder wrote: > ->> > ->> > How many RA4000s do you have? I have a solution (albeit an ugly one, but it > ->> > works) if you've only got 2 of them, and a cisco router (not sure if it will > ->> > work with others). > ->> > > ->> > > ->> > Bill > ->> > ....................................................................... > ->> > Bill Grunfelder System Administrator > ->> > wjgrun@cyberwar.com Cyber Warrior, Inc. > ->> > http://www.cyberwar.com/~wjgrun/ (201) 703-1517 > ->> > > ->> > -The above does not necessarily coincide with the views of my employer- > ->> > > ->> > ->> > -> > >