Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!ucbvax!MICA.BERKELEY.EDU!gts From: gts@MICA.BERKELEY.EDU (Greg Small) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc Subject: Re: Sources for Telnet/FTP Servers for DOS and OS/2 Message-ID: <9104121730.AA25399@mica.berkeley.edu> Date: 12 Apr 91 17:30:36 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 28 = From jbvb@ftp.com Thu Apr 11 20:29:03 1991 = To: Greg Small = Subject: Re: Sources for Telnet/FTP Servers for DOS and OS/2 = From: jbvb@ftp.com (James B. Van Bokkelen) = ... how do I read mail received on my PC when I am at another location? = The PCMAIL protocol (RFC 1056) ..... Sorry I wasn't clearer in my post. The question was rhetorical as an example of why I would want to have a Telnet client for my PC. Since I save mail on my PC both for reference and for later reply, etc. The tools on my PC are really quite a bit better than on UNIX or other "real" systems ;-). While PCMAIL is a solution if all mail is saved on UNIX, it does not help if the mail is saved on the PC. The many serial tools to connect to a PC clearly indicate both the possibility and demand for such a capability. I never have understood the network vendors reluctance to provide a full suite of TCP/IP software for PCs under DOS. For every client application there should be a server application. The "lack of multitasking" is not a valid complaint for two reasons. First there are many instances where even a one-at-a-time implementation whould be useful (as for a Telnet server, or rsh server, or ...). Secondly, where the collection of programs are all from one vendor, they could easily be multitasked by cooperative conventions or using a common kernel. Gregory T Small (415)642-5979 Personal Computer Networking & Communications gts@violet.Berkeley.EDU Workstation Support Services - Software Group ucbvax!jade!gts 267 Evans Hall SPGGTS@UCBCMSA.BITNET University of California, Berkeley, Ca 94720