Surveiller ce forum | 
Commencer une nouvelle discussion
| RE: [NEWBIE] X400 status ? [ Répondre ] Par : Thomas HARDING on 2012-08-16 19:08 | [forum:478907] |
|
Cool! This is amazing to see how they had portability in mind at that old times! If anyone can handle that C code (new BSD versions, Linux), what I can do is to focus on the middle-end daemons (we have Postfix, and we have now isode-pp). there is also x25 stuff, which could at least be ported on AX25 (amateur radio) stack. I'm not aware of any living X25 network ('think even ICAO/OACI have been switched now on IP, but I can dig in my mess if still having a quick & dirty 2 hours hand-written schema on ACP127+X25/IP+SMTP gateway I done for that -*- need 3 guys and 2 years => too long, man: we rent for a solution :). A shame I have very little capacities in C (while I can read and port to python). TSFH. |
|
| RE: [NEWBIE] X400 status ? [ Répondre ] Par : Graeme Lunt on 2012-08-16 11:06 | [forum:478903] |
|
George, You can still get hold of the open source versions of PP (X.400 MTA) and QUIPU (X.500 DSA) if you look. They do not implement the latest standards but they may be worth looking at. Google for "isode pp". There are also vendors that will sell you DSAs and MTAs with MMHS capabilities e..g ACP 133 schema. priority-level-qualifier support - but without the other MMHS components e.g. MM-UAs, PUA, MLAs etc. They also have APIs if you are looking to build a gateway. Graeme |
|
| RE: [NEWBIE] X400 status ? [ Répondre ] Par : George J. Capnias on 2012-08-16 09:21 | [forum:478900] |
|
Hi, I am glad that the X400 support is back on the table. I had found this project during an evaluation on implementing an ACP127 <=> X400 gateway. The attempt was frozen due to not finding FLOSS X400/X500 capable software. On further investigation it was impossible to find X400/X500 software without being packaged with a MMHS. Are there any suggestions how to create an X400/X500 developing environment? Regards, George J. |
|
| RE: [NEWBIE] X400 status ? [ Répondre ] Par : Thomas HARDING on 2012-08-14 23:45 | [forum:478899] |
|
Opened private with s.o here: we will see later; I can code a proof of concept in Python -- will run relatively slow, and take huge time to code (X400 + X500 + DNS records (X400/X500 parts => rfc2163 and so on -- thinks Python OK for part, but would be cool to update bind zones automagically) + X500 + rfc2156 + SMTP (no doubt: Python module is OK) + XIMF +...) It should be done in C, but I have no capability in C excepting little patches. And anyway will need even more time for a team. (me) * SMTP backend: Posfix (known perfectly) * DNS backend: Bind9 (same) * OpenLDAP (syncrepl => Other OpenLDAP servers (SMTP mail addresses + address rewriting + secure headers (PKI)) (same) * probably: PostgreSQL database (at least X500 / LDAP mapping, maybe X400/DNS MX mapping) (never worked on replica/clusters, SQL ok, PL/pgSQL not mastered but there are other procedurals in) * Python, a master process, forking /n/ childs (having /some/ capabilities) * on-disk queues with /n/ priorities queues (flash, emergency, routine...), (xattrs ?) * cron tasks (queues scheduling (non-flash) w/, processes check, ...) (who don't knows..) * maybe the secure headers handling (L.Cailleux Draft rfc), server part (having done stuff on an IPP spaghetti php client, RFC handling is not a problem => for scalability/stability: standard packages for backends, separate packages for backends config, separate packages for specific stuff, separatable machines, last a parent package for whole config/packages selection. => OS: Debian -- no doubt on. (well-know, packaging ok too) I don't know *in what way* we could publicly release (in case of I will request for an SVN repo here), and even *when*, especially if I'm the only developper working on (I'm sysadmin, UNIX/Linux only): a good plan would be having a leader/packager, a developpers team, and testers/feedback. also It needs a working X400/X500 network (tests), and I have not but for me this is in mind Regards, TSFH |
|
| RE: [NEWBIE] X400 status ? [ Répondre ] Par : laurent cailleux on 2012-08-13 22:56 | [forum:478894] |
|
I am not aware of a server FLOSS, but it might be a great idea to initiate such development ;-) Regards, Laurent |
|
| RE: [NEWBIE] X400 status ? [ Répondre ] Par : Thomas HARDING on 2012-08-13 22:06 | [forum:478893] |
|
I Myself conducted test for French Air Army in "Combined Endeavor 2003" exercise (was 1st presence of French Air Army :). SMTP was in primary goals (and we didn't test any on X400) to interoperarate the nations, and so what we tested (Postfix did not succeed with Delivery Receipt -- I didn't have test plans before the exercice, otherwise I maybe could found/done a patch). The problem is that NATO still uses X400, so we use a proprietary server which does SMTP <=> X400. Are you aware of a FLOSS server or "combination of FLOSS" which could do that transfer? Best regards, TSFH |
|
| RE: [NEWBIE] X400 status ? [ Répondre ] Par : laurent cailleux on 2012-08-13 21:35 | [forum:478891] |
|
Hello, A few studies (UK, GER, FRA ...) have demonstrated the interest of use of SMTP (with associated protocols) in MMHS environment. The objective of Trustedbird is to be an email client in a MMHS based on SMTP. Regards, Laurent |
|
| RE: [NEWBIE] X400 status ? [ Répondre ] Par : Thomas HARDING on 2012-08-11 15:07 | [forum:478887] |
| Well, answer myself : has been deleted from project regarding ML historic | |
| [NEWBIE] X400 status ? [ Répondre ] Par : Thomas HARDING on 2012-08-11 14:49 | [forum:478885] |
|
Hello, (I'm new to that list) One of the primary goals of Milimail/Trustedbird was X400 messenging As far as I know this is still needed by NATO, while all nations conducted SMTP crossed tests on SMTP for eras. Is there any status on that for Trustedbird ? -- TSFH |
|
