[nos-bbs] JNOS, maildir instead of mbox, *global* mail - comments ?

[Alan Sieg WB5RMG]

I know I'm coming from left-field, having been away from JNOS for some time,
but if Winlink knows my callsign 'globally' (with no host/domain part),
that qualifies Winlink as the only system that can use my callsign without
some additional qualifier... There can be only one 'global' delivery point.

So, what if JNOS were to consider 'un-qualified' recipients as a
default to winlink.org ..?.. I know this flies in the face of Eric Allman,
and a whole wad of rewrite rules - but there can't be more than one
'global' delivery point, right ? Perhaps a switch that turns OFF local
delivery to unqualified names... Maybe you don't want local delivery.

I would not want to suggest that JNOS turn into nothing more than the
same functionality of a RMS gateway, but weren't you working on
forwarding to Winlink not so long ago ? A telnet connection  to RMS GW
just opens a telnet to server.winlink.org ... A connection to a particular
port on JNOS could do the same I guess.

Just a first glance at an alternative handling of unqualified names.
I certainly don't intend to offend anyone.
Of all people I have a great respect for the SMTP re-write rules and the
'normal' way of doing things...

BUT, good food for thought Maiko .!.
  Thanks  /;^)
-- 
  #  Alan Sieg, WB5RMG since 1976
  #  http://wb5rmg.wordpress.com
  #  http://www.linkedin.com/in/alansieg
  #  wb5rmg(at)amsat(dot)org AMSAT#20554

> Some time in early 2009, I wrote something along the line of :
>
>> This goes along the same line of thought as GLOBAL mailboxes :
>
>>   What if I could connect to any NOS, FBB, MSYS, whatever system
>>   and simply direct a mail to a callsign (ie, VE4KLM), instead of
>>   to VE4KLM@#WPG.MB.CAN.NOAM ? Our callsigns are **UNIQUE**, so why
>>   bother with the #WPG.MB.CAN.NOAM or somewhere.someplace.com ?
>
>> Winlink has it that you simply send to the CALLSIGN. Again, I have
>> seriously been thinking about a global system where we just scrapt the
>> suffix, so that the mail is truly GLOBAL, not local to a particular
>> system. People have suggested a central IMAP server with IMAP proxies
>> distributed globally and then have *participating* NOS systems link
>> into that system. OR something along that line.
>
>> That stuff truly exites me.
>
> I have been looking into this again lately, and the big obstacle that
> stands out to me is that JNOS is using MBOX format for the mail. Just
> looking at the locking code is enough to give me a headache.
>
> Now, if it were a MAILDIR based system instead, I think it would be
> immensely easier and much less complicated to implement this idea of
> global mailboxes within the JNOS software.
>
> Any comments ?
>
> Please, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this.
>
> Maiko Langelaar / VE4KLM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nos-bbs mailing list
> nos-bbs at tapr.org
> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nos-bbs
>