By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,224 Members | 1,037 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,224 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

NT, CDO, SMTP

P: n/a
Sue
Does this "NT-based machine (NT, 2K, XP)" mean a WindowsXP machine is a
NT-based machine?

What does NT stand for and what does it mean?

What is CDONTS?

What does this mean - "The machine must be running the SMTP service "?

Thanks,

Sue
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
8 Replies


P: n/a
On Wed, 19 May 2004 04:50:16 GMT, "Sue" <sw*****@earthlink.net> wrote:

See comments in-line.
-Tom.
Does this "NT-based machine (NT, 2K, XP)" mean a WindowsXP machine is a
NT-based machine? According to the author of that sentence: yes.

What does NT stand for and what does it mean? New Technology. Newer than Windows 3.1 en vogue at that time. The
first 32-bit OS from MSFT designed for businesses and servers.

What is CDONTS? Collaborative data objects for Windows NT Server. A popular object
model to send emails.

What does this mean - "The machine must be running the SMTP service "? SMTP is Simple Mail Transport Protocol, a popular way to send emails.
Use Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Services to see if it is
running.

Thanks,

Sue

With so many basic questions you appear to be very lost. Perhaps it is
time to get professional help.
Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
Tom van Stiphout wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2004 04:50:16 GMT, "Sue" <sw*****@earthlink.net> wrote:

See comments in-line.
-Tom.

Does this "NT-based machine (NT, 2K, XP)" mean a WindowsXP machine is a
NT-based machine?


According to the author of that sentence: yes.


Yes, XP has it's roots in NT.

What does NT stand for and what does it mean?


New Technology. Newer than Windows 3.1 en vogue at that time. The
first 32-bit OS from MSFT designed for businesses and servers.


New - seems silly now doesn't it as it applied to something introduced
so long ago :-)

What is CDONTS?


Collaborative data objects for Windows NT Server. A popular object
model to send emails.


Old - The favored thing now is CDO (basically disassociating it from a
particular version of Windows).
--
Error reading sig - A)bort R)etry I)nfluence with large hammer
Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
SA
Actually, CDONTS was/is a very light weight email programming interface that
runs on NT / 2000 / Xp both servers and workstations. It is primarily used
by web servers and web applications, but can be used from other apps as
well. CDONTS outputs a plain text mail item and sends it to a targeted
SMTP mail server (Simple mail transport protocol, is the internet standard
mail system), that is run on the web server or another server. CDONTS
requires the SMTP mail service to be running to work. But it runs on all
flavors of Windows other than Win9.x. From the stand point of programming,
CDONTS can be a very easy interface to use if all you want to do is send
plain text SMTP mail and you have a mail service running rather than using
API calls.

CDO on the other hand, was the "heavy weight" MAPI focused email automation
programming interface, that was primarily focused on desktop applications
needing interface with the MAPI (ms mail application programming interface)
mail system (i.e. the mail system that underlies Outlook by and large).

CDO is not really in "vogue" now either. MS is moving toward SMTP as the
standard mail protocol rather than MAPI, and LDAP as the standard directory
interface for things like address books. On the 2000, XP and Server 2003
platforms, you can use the automation interface in what is called CDOex to
send SMTP mail in a much more robust way than you could with CDONTS. You
have to write your own code to build up multipart MIME email message
sections, but if all you want to do is send a plain text SMTP mail, CDOex
is also pretty easy to use. CDOex, also requires an SMTP service to be
running to function.

--
Steve Arbaugh
ACG Soft
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/attac-cg

"Trevor Best" <nospam@localhost> wrote in message
news:40**********************@auth.uk.news.easynet .net...
Tom van Stiphout wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2004 04:50:16 GMT, "Sue" <sw*****@earthlink.net> wrote:

See comments in-line.
-Tom.

Does this "NT-based machine (NT, 2K, XP)" mean a WindowsXP machine is a
NT-based machine?


According to the author of that sentence: yes.


Yes, XP has it's roots in NT.

What does NT stand for and what does it mean?


New Technology. Newer than Windows 3.1 en vogue at that time. The
first 32-bit OS from MSFT designed for businesses and servers.


New - seems silly now doesn't it as it applied to something introduced so
long ago :-)

What is CDONTS?


Collaborative data objects for Windows NT Server. A popular object
model to send emails.


Old - The favored thing now is CDO (basically disassociating it from a
particular version of Windows).
--
Error reading sig - A)bort R)etry I)nfluence with large hammer

Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
Trevor Best <nospam@localhost> wrote in
news:40**********************@auth.uk.news.easynet .net:
Tom van Stiphout wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2004 04:50:16 GMT, "Sue" <sw*****@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Does this "NT-based machine (NT, 2K, XP)" mean a WindowsXP
machine is a NT-based machine?


According to the author of that sentence: yes.


Yes, XP has it's roots in NT.


Has it's roots? It *is* NT. It is built on top of the NT kernel, and
is substantially the same OS as NT 4 (which was substantially
different from NT 3.51, its predecessor, because MS had to bring
certain graphics functions into the kernel because of the demands of
the Win95 UI that was grafted onto NT at that point; had they waited
a couple of years, hardware would have fixed the problem and all our
NT-based versions of Windows would be more stable, but I digress).

It's important to recognize that there have been 3 Windows
"kernels":

1. 16-bit Windows (Win3.x and its predecessors -- arguably not a
kernel at all, since it really wasn't an OS, but just a GUI running
on top of MS-DOS; though by the time of Win4Workgroups and Win3.11,
it was getting quite a bit of OS-like stuff in it, like virtual
memory management and direct 32-bit disk access).

2. Windows 9x (Win95, Win95, WinME), which was a version of Windows
that had lots and lots of 16-bit components but could run apps
written to the Win32 API.

3. Windows NT (NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP),
which was architected from the ground up to replace Microsoft's
original commitment to OS2, which was developed in consultation with
IBM.

Windows XP is unquestionably Windows NT, just with a different name.
Indeed, I'd call it Windows NT 5.2, since it's not significantly
different at the low level from Windows 2000 (which was a major
rewrite in comparison to NT 4). Most of XP's differences with Win2K
are in the GUI and the driver model, not in the actual kernel. But
the differences are quite significant, making XP a rather unreliable
and problematic OS, in my experience.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #5

P: n/a
"SA" <~f***********@nspm.com> wrote in
news:c8**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com:
. . . CDONTS requires the SMTP mail service to be running to
work. But it runs on all flavors of Windows other than Win9.x.
Er, what you really mean is that it runs on NT-based versions of
Windows, as it empatically would *not* run on Win3.x.
CDO is not really in "vogue" now either. MS is moving toward
SMTP as the standard mail protocol rather than MAPI, and LDAP as
the standard directory interface for things like address books.
On the 2000, XP and Server 2003 platforms, you can use the
automation interface in what is called CDOex to send SMTP mail in
a much more robust way than you could with CDONTS. You have to
write your own code to build up multipart MIME email message
sections, but if all you want to do is send a plain text SMTP
mail, CDOex is also pretty easy to use. CDOex, also requires an
SMTP service to be running to function.


Keep in mind, though, that because of the spam problem, you really
won't be able to send much email from a workstation, or from any
machine that does not have a DNS record indicating that it is a mail
server.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #6

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
making XP a rather unreliable
and problematic OS, in my experience.


Whereas I've been quite happy with Win XP.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Nov 12 '05 #7

P: n/a
David W. Fenton wrote:
Keep in mind, though, that because of the spam problem, you really
won't be able to send much email from a workstation, or from any
machine that does not have a DNS record indicating that it is a mail
server.


That's not as restrictive as you'd think, on our set up for instance,
our mail server's address is also our NAT address so any machine within
our network is able to send mail. You can also set up a smarthost on
your SMTP server although for this application if you can see a
smarthost then you may as well use that as the SMTP server in the first
place and save a few resources on your own machine.

--
Error reading sig - A)bort R)etry I)nfluence with large hammer
Nov 13 '05 #8

P: n/a
Trevor Best <nospam@localhost> wrote in
news:40**********************@auth.uk.news.easynet .net:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Keep in mind, though, that because of the spam problem, you
really won't be able to send much email from a workstation, or
from any machine that does not have a DNS record indicating that
it is a mail server.


That's not as restrictive as you'd think, on our set up for
instance, our mail server's address is also our NAT address so any
machine within our network is able to send mail. You can also set
up a smarthost on your SMTP server although for this application
if you can see a smarthost then you may as well use that as the
SMTP server in the first place and save a few resources on your
own machine.


Most small businesses aren't running their own email server, so it
doesn't really apply to a lot of people, seems to me.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #9

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.