Date: Sun, 12 Mar 95 19:52:26 EST From: Snuffles@kew.com Subject: UUPC-Info-Request Digest 1995 #8 To: uupc-info-digest@kew.com Message-ID: Reply-To: UUPC-Info-Request@kew.com UUPC-Info-Request Digest Sun, 12 Mar 95 Volume 1995: Issue 8 Today's Topics: (suppressed) Control: newgroup comp.binaries.ms-windows moderated (fwd) hostpath -> gateway Outbound question (2 msgs) rmail gateways for the local node rnews exists with status 98 in 1.12n undelete under OS/2 UUPC Win 3.1x and Windows NT--Help To subscribe to UUPC-Info-Digest, send the command in the body of a message to listserv@kew.com: subscribe uupc-info-Digest To signoff from UUPC-Info-Digest, use "signoff" instead of "subscribe". You can also send an "index" to the listserv to get an index of back issues and other files available for retrieval. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 95 11:13:03 -0500 From: sysop@mome-raths.iac.net Subject: (suppressed) Control: newgroup comp.binaries.ms-windows moderated (fwd) To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Forwarded message: > Message-ID: <2f614865.mome@mome-raths.iac.net> > Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 01:51:17 -0500 > From: "Unix to Unix Copy" > Organization: Mome Raths BBS > To: sysop@mome-raths.iac.net > Subject: (suppressed) Control: newgroup comp.binaries.ms-windows moderated > The only documentation that I can find for the active file with UUPC allows entries in the file such as: comp.os.os2.misc 34 31 y where 'y' means the user is allowed to post and 'n' means they are not. Some systems require an 'm' for moderated groups, however. I'm curious as to how this is handled under UUPC. Also, when I receive the above control messages, they always read (supressed). Therefore, are they informational only (as in, I can take action if necessary, otherwise ignore it)? John -- Mome Raths BBS sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT` ^. .^ (513)523-7887 ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD ( @ ) Oxford, Ohio ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 11:19:33 -0500 From: Software@kew.com Subject: hostpath -> gateway To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Thu, 11 Aug 94 11:43:16 CET, "Chris Pallasch" wrote: > [...] > > > If I use the "*.xxx.yyy | program" pipe-program option in the hostpath > > > file, the gateway "name", in this case "*.xxx.yyy", is passed aswell > [...] > > > The parameters are actually: > > > > hostp->via, /* Program to perform forward */ > > hostp->hostname, /* Nominal host routing via */ > > node , /* Final destination system */ > > user, /* user on "node" for delivery*/ > > rnode, /* Originating node */ > > ruser ); /* Originating user */ > > > Sounds good, but when I use it with a hostpath entry like > *.com | e:\usr\lib\uucp\routemail > test@kew.com will show the following, if routemail is replaced by a > parameter-echoing cmd. > > rmail 1.11z (OS/2,32b) rmail 1.12j (OS/2,32b) > %0 e:\usr\lib\uucp\routemail e:\usr\lib\uucp\routemail > %1 *.com *.com > %2 kew.com *.com <<<<------ > %3 test test > %4 - scimitar > %5 - cp > > I didn't use every updated rmail, but this also occured in 1.12b (OS/2,32b) This is fixed in 1.12o, finally. Gatewaying everything for *.vr.kew.com into a dummy program: sonata.kew.com | sonata *.vr.kew.com | sonata *.middleearth.kew.com = kendra sol.kew.com 5.vr.kew.com and then sending mail to lori@sol.vr.kew.com and ahd@baggins.vr.kew.com like so, the old (1.12j) parameters were passed were: >>> *.vr.kew.com *.vr.kew.com lori kew.com ahd >>> *.vr.kew.com *.vr.kew.com ahd kew.com ahd The new parameters: >>> *.vr.kew.com sol.vr.kew.com lori kew.com ahd >>> *.vr.kew.com baggins.vr.kew.com ahd kew.com ahd As previously noted, this will also work for the local node now. The LOCAL NODE MUST BE GATED VIA THE NODENAME! This is because the domain name is merely an alias for the nodename. -ahd- p.s. The VR-5 series debut on Fox was _really_ bad Friday night. Virtual Reality through an 300 bps modem? With no modem on the other end? With a user who makes Snuffles look like a power programmer? With ... oh, nevermind. -- Drew Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: software@kew.com Telephone: 617-641-3452 "It's just a jump to the left | But it's the pelvic thrust And then a step to the right | That really drives you insane Put your hands on your hips | Let's do the Time Warp again . . ." And bring your knees in tight | - "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 19:17:54 -0500 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: Outbound question To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Tue, 7 Mar 1995 22:27:04 -0600 (CST), cel@tenet.edu wrote: > I have finally gotten my outbound to work... almost. My local novel > login name is 2lce therefore outbound mail is being given the address of > 2lce@cbs-engineering.com. I would prefer to have it use an alias. I'm a > bit confused on which alias file to edit and exactly what to [ut in it. > I would prefer my outbound mail to look like > cliff.lee@cbs-engineering.com. What should my Alias entry be and which > alias file should I be editing; the one in uupc-in or uupc-out? What do you mean uupc-in or uupc-out? In a normal UUPC/extended installtion even one which redirects mail to another system, there is only one UUPC/extended configuration directory. I am unsure why the programmer who provided you your gateway felt the need for two configuration files, if that is what he/she/it did. > I'm > guesing uupc-out, but attempts to modify that have not yeilded anything > of consequence. There is no such thing as an outbound alias file. If you want the outbound mail to use those values, you must specify in the configuration file the mailbox and domain (or fromdomain) to specify those fields. -- Drew Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: software@kew.com Telephone: 617-641-3452 To sign off from uupc-info, send the command "signoff uupc-info" in the body of a message to listserv@kew.com. DO NOT send this request to the list itself! For human assistance with the list itself, send mail to snuffles@kew.com. "Well I'm no hero that's understood . . ." - Bruce Springsteen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 09:56:21 GMT+0200 From: scm@silver.wcape.school.za Subject: Outbound question To: UUPC/Extended mailing list > What do you mean uupc-in or uupc-out? In a normal UUPC/extended > installtion even one which redirects mail to another system, there is > only one UUPC/extended configuration directory. I am unsure why the > programmer who provided you your gateway felt the need for two > configuration files, if that is what he/she/it did. I did it; it's a consequence of the fact that UUPC/extended won't deliver mail it regards as local to a gateway; you have to define the gateway domain as different to the UUPC domain for it to work. I've tried hostpath'ing the host name to the gateway, which doesn't work either. As a result, it works like this: - wanted domain is site.domain - UUPC/extended incoming domain is inmail.site.domain, and gateways mail to another (LAN) delivery prog. for site.domain - outgoing domain is mail.site.domain, so that messages which bounce (come back as mail.site.domain!user) can also be delivered via a gateway. I would be overjoyed if the next release of UUPC allowed gatewaying ALL mail (including "local" mail) to another delivery program, which would eliminate this hack. Stephen Marquard (compiler of UUPLAN / uplan11c.zip) --- Stephen Marquard, scm@silver.wcape.school.za 12 Silverdale, Pinelands 7405, Cape Town, SA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 08:30:10 -0500 From: Software@kew.com Subject: rmail gateways for the local node To: UUPC/Extended mailing list I just fixed rmail being able perform gateway operations for the local node. if you previously tried to gateway via the hostpath file for the local node and got recursive bounce mail messages, this will be fixed in the follow-up to 1.12n. -ahd- -- Drew Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: software@kew.com Telephone: 617-641-3452 Shopping list: Strawberries ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 07:40:05 -0500 From: Software@kew.com Subject: rnews exists with status 98 in 1.12n To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Wed, 8 Mar 95 22:16:11 -0700, "Ken Wiens" wrote: > uuxqt log reports that spawn of rnews exist with status of 98. from > a cursory glance at the code, this appears to mean extra parameters > at the end of the line. However, the log also shows not additional > parameters are included. Any suggestions as to what is going wrong? > 100% of my attmtpts to invoke rnews now fail. The IBM C/Set++ for OS/2 compiler has a bug which causes a spurious parameter to be generated if no parameters are passed. The next release of UUPC/extended will work around this by always generating a parameter, usually the debug level. A workaround until the next release ships is to use the 16 bit versions of RNEWS and UUXQT from 1.12n. -- Drew Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: software@kew.com Telephone: 617-641-3452 "You're not keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked" - Aliens ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 19:29:55 -0500 From: Software@kew.com Subject: undelete under OS/2 To: UUPC/Extended mailing list UUPC/extended 1.12n+1 (probably a third test release, 1.12o) for OS/2 (32 bit), will FINALLY include support for the boolean option=undelete. DOS, Windows 3.x and Windows NT releases are not affected by this change. UNLESS YOU SPECIFY options=undelete under OS/2, UUPC/extended will now BYPASS the undelete cache when deleting files. This should not really affect people, since most files are temporary anyway and it allows backing up one generation of many "user" files via options=backup, but it's something to be aware. If you are running the 32 bit OS/2 and want to continue to use the UNDELETE command with UUPC/extended files, you should add options=undelete to your uupc.rc today. (The keyword has actually been in the table for a couple of years, I just never got around to writing the function call). -ahd- -- Drew Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: software@kew.com Telephone: 617-641-3452 "An experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often quite picturesque liar." - Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 19:24:13 -0500 From: Help@kew.com Subject: UUPC Win 3.1x and Windows NT--Help To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Thu, 9 Mar 1995 17:32:14 -0500, "Irwan Yap" wrote: > 1. Can we installed UUPC NT version in our NT Server, and shared by > WfW 3.11 workstation? Our workstations are connected to NT via > WORKGROUP connectivity. > Purpose: UUCP mail gateway and UUPC mail post office in NT Server, > WfW 3.11 workstation runs UUPC mail programs, send and > retrieve mails from their workstations. > > 2. If yes, Should we installed UUPC Windows 3.x version in WfW 3.11 > workstation to retrieve and send mail? Or Win NT version in NT Server > and Shared by WfW 3.11 workstations? What others have done is running the server software on the NT Server and run Cinetic Mail Manager (someone else's shareware product), a windows GUI mail front-end running over DOS UUPC/extended RMAIL, on the work stations. They use shared disk via WfW. CMM has not been updated in a couple of years. Does anyone have a better GUI they like UUPC/extended? -- Drew Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: software@kew.com Telephone: 617-641-3452 "Either he fears his fate, or his desserts are small, He who would not put it to the test to win or lose all." - Montrose ------------------------------ End of UUPC-Info-Request Digest ******************************