Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!shasta!trier
From: trier@shasta.scl.cwru.edu (Stephen Trier)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mush
Subject: Re: DOS port of 7.1...
Message-ID: <1990Jun6.235008.1202@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: 6 Jun 90 23:50:08 GMT
References: <9BRKVS5@drivax.UUCP> <wgJBk6w162w@twiki.PDX.COM> <41660@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
Reply-To: trier@SCL.CWRU.Edu (Stephen Trier)
Organization: Smith Undergrad Lab, CWRU, Cleve. OH
Lines: 44
X-Post-Machine: shasta.scl.cwru.edu

Dale Weber writes:
>  I'd be _very_ interested in something like this also. I've got Turbo C
>v2.0 Professional here and wouldn't mind helping in such an effort. I am
>going to see if I can interface smail2.5/PC to Waffle also, as soon as I
>get my hands on the source, or maybe that of smail3.x (or even both). I
>see this rather large archive of smail.3.1.19 sitting on uunet that I
>have been tempted to grab... ;-) I haven't seen source for mush v7.1.1

     I wish you luck with the Waffle link to smail/PC!  I'll be quite
interested if you manage to pull it off.  smail/PC itself will be pretty
happy in non-UUPC/Mush-PC environments.  All you need to do is to arrange
to call smail (actually, rmail) appropriately, and then write a version of
lmail to create the kind of mailbox you need.  It should generally be
pretty easy.

In article <41660@apple.Apple.COM> dell@Apple.COM (Thomas E. Dell) writes:
>I would not recommend porting smail3 to DOS. The sources are
>huge, and an order of magnitude more Unix specific than smail2.5. 

     I agree.  I ported smail2.5 because it was, to paraphrase the README
file, "small and simple".  It was a tight fit in a PC with Mush running,
and I'm working on cutting the memory usage some more.  (Deliver 2.0,
anyone?  :-) )  I haven't even bothered looking at smail3.1 yet; it's just
too big to fit into 640K with Mush.  Incidentally, the original memory
consumption of smail/PC was ~700K, worst case.  smail/PC's worst case
requirements are around 240K, and I'm working on cutting that to 120K.

And about Mush 7.1.1, Dale Weber writes:
>but I think that too is sitting on uunet just waiting... ;-) It _must_
>include source, but would be for UNIX and need re-porting over to DOS.

     Mark O'Carroll, who did the Mush-PC ports in the past, is working on
7.1.  He had a 7.0 port running, but 7.1 was released well before he was
ready to release it.  The word is "Reasonably Soon Now", although I will
warn you that he tends to have a very long (and very thorough) testing
cycle.  Another warning: it's going to be big.  I believe that Mush-PC
7.1 won't be able to fit in memory without overlays.  That's not much of
a loss to smail/PC users, since smail/PC already requires running the
overlay version of Mush 6.5.

            <=> Stephen Trier    sct%seldon@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu
                                 {sun,att,decvax}!cwjcc!skybridge!seldon!sct
                                 sct@po.CWRU.Edu