Date: Wed, 9 Aug 95 18:22:38 EDT From: Snuffles@kew.com Subject: UUPC-Info-Request Digest 1995 #27 To: uupc-info-digest@kew.com Message-ID: Reply-To: UUPC-Info-Request@kew.com UUPC-Info-Request Digest Wed, 9 Aug 95 Volume 1995: Issue 27 Today's Topics: (4 msgs) List to news (4 msgs) Nice MS Windows Email Interface for UUPC? (5 msgs) rmail (2 msgs) rnews 1.12m uucico doesn't re-poll for outgoing jobs once connected (2 msgs) UUPC-speed (6 msgs) UUPC via TCP 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: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 09:11:47 -0500 From: brucep@stylus.com Subject: To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note From: Bruce Pennypacker To: 'smtp:uupc-info@kew.com' Subject: rmail error Date: 1995-08-08 09:10 Priority: Message ID: ACA4430D Conversation ID: ACA4430D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I just got our uucp provider to turn on our news feed. We're receiving the news files, and rnews is being run. However for every single message we get we're getting the following error (I now have a nice 12K file with nothing but this throughout it): 08/08-09:01 rnews: UUPC/extended 1.12k (Dec 11 1994 12:33:55) 08/08-09:01 Article has no Message-ID:, discarded Our provider assures me that the messages are properly formatted with message ID's. Is there any way to save the messages before rnews processes them so I can actually take a look and verify them? Any other suggestions for resolving this problem? -Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 17:30:04 -0500 From: brucep@stylus.com Subject: To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note From: Bruce Pennypacker To: 'smtp:uupc-info@kew.com' Subject: rnews not uncompressing files Date: 1995-08-08 17:10 Priority: Message ID: B157254C Parent message ID: ACA4430D Conversation ID: ACA4430D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I've been trying to track down why I've been getting the following when our uucp feed turned on a few newsgroups today: 08/08-09:01 rnews: UUPC/extended 1.12k (Dec 11 1994 12:33:55) 08/08-09:01 Article has no Message-ID:, discarded According to our provider they're compressing the files before they send them, but when they get to our side of things they're not being uncompressed. From the documentation on rnews I thought that this program was supposed to be uncompressing the news files before processing them, but it's not doing this. I've changed my uupc.rc file to include uncompress=gzip -d %s as well as uncompress=compress -d %s, and even a batch file with a pause statement in it, but rnews is never calling it. What do I need to do to have rnews uncompress the news files before it processes them? -Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 08:30:02 -0400 From: brucep@stylus.com Subject: To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note From: Bruce Pennypacker To: 'smtp:uupc-info@kew.com' Subject: 2 questions from a neophyte Date: 1995-08-04 08:21 Priority: Message ID: CBBDABD3 Conversation ID: CBBDABD3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Our company recently set up UUPC for DOS (version 1.12k) as an e-mail system for our company. Nobody here knows very much about uucp, usenet, newsgroups, unix, etc. We got the mail system set up and working mainly because we had a good set of instructions to follow. I've personally been handling most of the setup & maintainence of UUPC since I have a little more knowledge about the internet than anybody else here. Now that we have our e-mail connection working I've got two questions: 1. Is there a way to set up an automated response system so that mail sent to a specific address gets an automated reply? Do I need some sort of auto-reply daemon or would a simple batch file be enough? 2. What would it take to set up access to newsgroups? What kind of newsreaders are there for DOS and/or Windows that I could set up for the other people in our company, and exactly what would I need to do to start receiving a few specific newsgroups and be able to let our people post/reply to them? / ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 17:22:56 -0400 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Fri, 04 Aug 1995 08:30:02 -0400, brucep@stylus.com wrote: > Now that we have our e-mail connection working I've got two questions: > > 1. Is there a way to set up an automated response system so that mail sent > to a specific address gets an automated reply? Do I need some sort of > auto-reply daemon or would a simple batch file be enough? You need a daemon. We use VMS, from Vanderburg Systems. You can order it from our listserv. > 2. What would it take to set up access to newsgroups? What kind of > newsreaders are there for DOS and/or Windows that I could set up for the > other people in our company, and exactly what would I need to do to start > receiving a few specific newsgroups and be able to let our people post/reply > to them? That's too big a question for a casual e-mail. Start with the chapters on news in the "Managing UUCP and Usenet" book. The 1.12n version of UUPC/extended uses the same control file format as C news. As for readers, RNR works, SNEWS works, ... -- 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. Samantha Fox for President, Ed Meese for V-P! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 10:08:25 +0000 From: ash@trellick.gn.apc.org Subject: List to news To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hi. After some messing around I have sucsessfully installed both UUPC and NNS (NNTP), and appear to have local NNTP running with news both IN and out of my site using UUPC. So.. I would now like to get this "list" as a news feed. Before I get my uplink to do this for me and to prevent duplication of effort I would like to check that this has NOT yet been done. Please reply by mail as well as in the list. Ashley Drees ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 10:08:25 +0000 From: ash@trellick.gn.apc.org Subject: List to news To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hi. After some messing around I have sucsessfully installed both UUPC and NNS (NNTP), and appear to have local NNTP running with news both IN and out of my site using UUPC. So.. I would now like to get this "list" as a news feed. Before I get my uplink to do this for me and to prevent duplication of effort I would like to check that this has NOT yet been done. Please reply by mail as well as in the list. Ashley Drees ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Aug 1995 23:58:05 +0000 From: ash@trellick.gn.apc.org Subject: List to news To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hi. After some messing around I have sucsessfully installed both UUPC and NNS (NNTP), and appear to have local NNTP running with news both IN and out of my site using UUPC. So.. I would now like to get this "list" as a news feed. Before I get my uplink to do this for me and to prevent duplication of effort I would like to check that this has NOT yet been done. Please reply by mail as well as in the list. Ashley Drees ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Aug 1995 23:58:05 +0000 From: ash@trellick.gn.apc.org Subject: List to news To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hi. After some messing around I have sucsessfully installed both UUPC and NNS (NNTP), and appear to have local NNTP running with news both IN and out of my site using UUPC. So.. I would now like to get this "list" as a news feed. Before I get my uplink to do this for me and to prevent duplication of effort I would like to check that this has NOT yet been done. Please reply by mail as well as in the list. Ashley Drees ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Aug 95 07:01 EDT From: jeffrey@thompson.itm.org Subject: Nice MS Windows Email Interface for UUPC? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Does anyone know of a nice MS Windows email interface that works with UUPC? Or even a nice MS Windows email interface that can dial the phone and do UUCP or POP? I don't want to use PPP, like Trumpet Winsock with Eudora, since that requires making a PPP connection, and in my opionion, is too complicated for just transferring email. I'd prefer the whole email transfer take place quickly, like a UUCP call, login, transfer email, logout. It would be nice if we could work out a way to use the free Eudora windows email manager to use UUPC without having to do PPP. Jeffrey Thompson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 19:22:08 +0000 From: jhs@banting.wimsey.com Subject: Nice MS Windows Email Interface for UUPC? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list > Does anyone know of a nice MS Windows email interface that works > with UUPC? Or even a nice MS Windows email interface that can dial > the phone and do UUCP or POP?... > I use WinPmail (Pegasus mail) with a little glue to pipe received messages to pmail, and a pmail gatway definition that uses rmail. Seems to work like a charm. js -- Home: jhs@banting.wimsey.com Work: jstewart@cgooa.enet.dec.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 19:22:08 +0000 From: jhs@banting.wimsey.com Subject: Nice MS Windows Email Interface for UUPC? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list > Does anyone know of a nice MS Windows email interface that works > with UUPC? Or even a nice MS Windows email interface that can dial > the phone and do UUCP or POP?... > I use WinPmail (Pegasus mail) with a little glue to pipe received messages to pmail, and a pmail gatway definition that uses rmail. Seems to work like a charm. js -- Home: jhs@banting.wimsey.com Work: jstewart@cgooa.enet.dec.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Aug 95 08:51:52 -0600 From: drew@cgo.dec.com Subject: Nice MS Windows Email Interface for UUPC? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list > > Does anyone know of a nice MS Windows email interface that works > > with UUPC? Or even a nice MS Windows email interface that can dial > > the phone and do UUCP or POP?... > > > > I use WinPmail (Pegasus mail) with a little glue to pipe received > messages to pmail, and a pmail gatway definition that uses rmail. > Seems to work like a charm. > CMM mailer, is a real nice windows mail program. All windows based and can be configured for many uucp packages including uupc with just a few clicks. I think you can grab it from cica. It is shareware. regards, Steve Drew. Work: drew@cgo.dec.com or home at drew@nowhere.mtroyal.ab.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Aug 1995 23:58:16 +0000 From: ash@trellick.gn.apc.org Subject: Nice MS Windows Email Interface for UUPC? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list At 19:22 05/08/95 +0000, jhs@banting.wimsey.com wrote: >I use WinPmail (Pegasus mail) with a little glue to pipe received Hm.. I am interested.. what do you need and how do I do this.... I have winpmail 1.22 (I think), what is the gateway stuff? Ashley Drees ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 12:46:00 +0000 From: BJONES@sla.com Subject: rmail To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Is there a way to get rmail (with the -t switch) to parse all addresses except for any with an @sla.com extension? When sending email to both a local and internet address, it turns out that the local message is received twice. It is first sent locally, then routed through UUPC to the user's mailbox. I could enable it to have all mail go through UUPC, but would rather not, since I run it every hour. I'd appreciate any suggestions. Thanks. Brandon Jones ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 17:17:54 -0400 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: rmail To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Wed, 2 Aug 1995 12:46:00 +0000, BJONES@sla.com wrote: > Is there a way to get rmail (with the -t switch) to parse all > addresses except for any with an @sla.com extension? When sending > email to both a local and internet address, it turns out that the > local message is received twice. It is first sent locally, then > routed through UUPC to the user's mailbox. I could enable it to have > all mail go through UUPC, but would rather not, since I run it every > hour. I'd appreciate any suggestions. Thanks. Not if you want RMAIL without the -t option to deliver to sla.com. -- 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. Samantha Fox for President, Ed Meese for V-P! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 09:08:36 -0500 From: brucep@stylus.com Subject: rnews 1.12m To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note From: Bruce Pennypacker To: 'smtp:uupc-info@kew.com' Subject: rnews 1.12m Date: 1995-08-09 09:07 Priority: Message ID: C0212BA4 Conversation ID: C0212BA4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I just found out one of the problems I was having with unbatching news was that I was using the wrong version of rnews. I had been using rnews 1.12k, and when I switched to 1.12m I started getting the following: 08/09-09:01 rnews: UUPC/extended 1.12m (Feb 21 1995 07:43:46) 08/09-09:01 uux command failed with status 255 08/09-09:01 rnews aborting at line 130 in file news\rnews.c I'm also getting stack overflow errors from uux: run-time error r6000 - stack overflow uux command failed with status 255 What's going on? -Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 17:36:38 -0400 From: Software@kew.com Subject: uucico doesn't re-poll for outgoing jobs once connected To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Mon, 31 Jul 95 10:43:06 TZ, "Nigel Ellis" wrote: > I'm a new user of UUPC and am currently evaluating before I decide the > register. I have one nagging concern. If I establish a connection to > another site, it seems that uupc builds the list of files to send > before it starts. It's a good question. Strictly speaking, untrue. Someone else was actually annoyed because we _don't_ read the entire directory in and sort it in perfect job name order. (This would cause our transmission queue size to be limited by memory rather than disk, or require complex code to be added to what are now reasonably simple functions.) > If I spool files to that site whilst the connection > is established I noticed that they won't get sent until the next time I > connect to the site. > > Why is this? This appears inconsistent with the unix implementations > of UUCP I've used in the past. However, the system calls we use do a one pass scan of the directory, and most directories (DOS and OS/2 especially) reuse unused directory entries which can cause us to miss new files. In other words, with a call directory starting with: C.A C.B C.C If the files in C.A are sent (and C.A is deleted) and then you create a new call file while the files in C.B are being sent, the directory entry for C.A is reused by the system and UUPC/extended doesn't see it. In general, it's not worth rescanning the directory on the off-chance a new file was created, although if the remote end has work to send (i.e. becomes the master) after your site sends all its work, if you have more work it should be sent after the remote side is done. In 1.12n, the directory is also rescanned if you have work if multiple UUCP classes. You can also force a rescan be queuing a low priority empty job before calling the remote site: uupoll -P hisname -ahd- -- Drew Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: software@kew.com Telephone: 617-641-3452 At Clarkson University no one can hear you scream. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 07:54:00 -0400 From: Software@kew.com Subject: uucico doesn't re-poll for outgoing jobs once connected To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Sat, 5 Aug 95 04:04:15 PDT, "Jeff Coffler" wrote: > Note that your fix (uupoll -P hisname) doesn't make sense. If you need > to do this BEFORE CALLING THE REMOTE SITE (which is what you said), then > doing this command serves no purpose since the directory list is scanned > anyway. Was there a typo or something here? Adding the dummy poll job at a lower class causes a _second_ directory scan (for jobs of the lower class) after the first list is completed. If you have a number of a class C (mail) jobs and a second class Z (dummy poll job), the first pass through the directory will process only the C jobs., but the next class to scan for (Z) is remembered. On the second pass, all jobs class Z _and_ _above_ will be processed. > In any case, I agree: If I'm currently conversing with a site, and I queue > some data for it (news, mail, whatever): it would be nice (and consistent > with UNIX) to send this data long during the current converstation rather > than during the next conversation. Doing one more directory scan should > not be that big a deal, should it? It's at least a small issue, since on older systems (FAT) the high water mark of the directory defines how many sectors have to be read. > It's kinda wierd to be CURRENTLY talking to site A, queue additional news > for site A (who may only call once a day or something), and then NOT have > that news be along it's way cuz' UUPC doesn't rescan. Well, I could argue that NT snapshotting the directory is sort of weird. :-) I'll look into it, not this week. -- Drew Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: software@kew.com Telephone: 617-641-3452 "Do you remember the bills you have to pay, or even yesterday?" - David Bowie ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 07:51:09 +0200 (MET DST) From: daemenl@eunet.be Subject: UUPC-speed To: UUPC/Extended mailing list I'm using regular 14400 bps modems (with V42bis/MNP-possibililies) which have been set up by initializing them with factory settings, inspee=14400, options nodirect,carrierdetect & fixedspeed. Communications are done using the G-protocol (default options) With this speed I get on zip-files a troughput of about 700 bytes a second (0 errors). This does not compare favorably with what can be obtained out of z-modem protocols (on which I get on the same kind of files 1200 Bps. Is this trouphput typical for UUCP in general and UUPC/extended in particular? I there anything conceivable to boost speed by changing parameters ? ludo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 08:39:24 -0800 From: timr@iia.com Subject: UUPC-speed To: UUPC/Extended mailing list > I'm using regular 14400 bps modems ... > > With this speed I get on zip-files a troughput of about 700 bytes a > second (0 errors). This is about the same as what we get running UUPC on a 14,400 modem connected to a 386/40. The BEST I do is about 650 bytes/second. Conversely, CompuServe uploads and downloads consistantly achieve 1600 bytes/second or better. I, too, would like to know if there's some common stupidity inflicted by naive users which can cause this kind of (un)performance, or if this is inherent in the uu protocols. -- - Tim Roberts Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc timr@iia.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 17:20:08 -0400 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: UUPC-speed To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Fri, 4 Aug 1995 07:51:09 +0200 (MET DST), daemenl@eunet.be wrote: > I'm using regular 14400 bps modems (with V42bis/MNP-possibililies) which have > been set up by initializing them with factory settings, inspee=14400, > options nodirect,carrierdetect & fixedspeed. Communications are done > using the G-protocol (default options) > > With this speed I get on zip-files a troughput of about 700 bytes a > second (0 errors). This does not compare favorably with what can be > obtained out of z-modem protocols (on which I get on the same kind of > files 1200 Bps. > > Is this trouphput typical for UUCP in general and UUPC/extended in > particular? I there anything conceivable to boost speed by changing > parameters ? If you're using UUPC/extended on both ends, try 'v' protocol. This may give a slight improvement for small files and many control packets. I think you should see higher between fast systems, but I mostly use OS/2 or NT with UUPC/extended these days, so the DOS driver doesn't come into play. -- 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. Samantha Fox for President, Ed Meese for V-P! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 17:24:52 -0400 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: UUPC-speed To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Fri, 04 Aug 1995 08:39:24 -0800, timr@iia.com wrote: > > I'm using regular 14400 bps modems ... > > > > With this speed I get on zip-files a troughput of about 700 bytes a > > second (0 errors). > > This is about the same as what we get running UUPC on a 14,400 modem connected > to a 386/40. The BEST I do is about 650 bytes/second. Conversely, CompuServe > uploads and downloads consistantly achieve 1600 bytes/second or better. > > I, too, would like to know if there's some common stupidity inflicted by > naive users which can cause this kind of (un)performance, or if this is > inherent in the uu protocols. Not in the larger packet protocols. It could easy be constrained by bad code. (*sigh*) -- 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. Samantha Fox for President, Ed Meese for V-P! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Aug 95 06:50 EDT From: jeffrey@thompson.itm.org Subject: UUPC-speed To: UUPC/Extended mailing list > Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 07:51:09 +0200 (MET DST) > From: daemenl@eunet.be > Sender: uupc-info-request@kew.com > Errors-to: uupc-info-request@kew.com > > I'm using regular 14400 bps modems (with V42bis/MNP-possibililies) > which have been set up by initializing them with factory settings, > inspee=14400, options nodirect,carrierdetect & > fixedspeed. Communications are done using the G-protocol (default > options) > > With this speed I get on zip-files a troughput of about 700 bytes a > second (0 errors). This does not compare favorably with what can be > obtained out of z-modem protocols (on which I get on the same kind of > files 1200 Bps. > > Is this trouphput typical for UUCP in general and UUPC/extended in > particular? I there anything conceivable to boost speed by changing > parameters ? I use Linux UUCP and G protocol with an intel 14.4 faxmodem that uses v.42bis that's talking with another intel 14.4 faxmodem and I average about 1600bps for prolonged transfers. Here's the proof in the pudding: uucp my_linux (8/4-16:00:43,520,0) Protocol 'g' packets: sent 15, resent 0, received 393 uucp my_linux (8/4-16:00:43,520,0) Call complete (15 seconds 24125 bytes 1608 bps) Jeffrey Thompson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Aug 95 11:48:41 +0000 From: eric@logsdon.org Subject: UUPC-speed To: UUPC/Extended mailing list -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > I'm using regular 14400 bps modems ... > > > > With this speed I get on zip-files a troughput of about 700 bytes a > > second (0 errors). > > This is about the same as what we get running UUPC on a 14,400 modem connected > to a 386/40. The BEST I do is about 650 bytes/second. Conversely, CompuServe > uploads and downloads consistantly achieve 1600 bytes/second or better. > > I, too, would like to know if there's some common stupidity inflicted by > naive users which can cause this kind of (un)performance, or if this is > inherent in the uu protocols. > > -- > - Tim Roberts > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc > timr@iia.com I am using a 14400 modem and get 1100 - 1200 cps throughput. Two things to look at in the uucp setup are the packet size and window size. Setting both higher will increase throughput by reducing packet and acknowledgment overhead (as a percentage of data sent). I am using 512 byte packets and a window size of 7. The actual packet size negotiated with my host is 256, though. If you have set these parameters higher, you may want to check your host. If is won't accept large packet or window sizes, setting them higher on your end does nothing. The host may also be overloaded. If you have an external modem, watch the blinking lights. If there are a lot of pauses after each send or receive sequence, the host may be too busy. try talking to the sysop and see if there is a lower activity period to grab mail and news. Also, transfering small files is slower than large files due to the "setup" overhead in the software of checking the queue, etc. Make sure your newsfeed is compressed and batched. This will increase throughput. Infortunately, mail cannot be compressed or batched. Hope this helps. - -- - -------------------------------------------------------- Eric L. Logsdon | DON'T PANIC eric@logsdon.org | PGP Fingerprint: Type bits/keyID Date User ID pub 1024/4E549481 1994/07/09 Eric L. Logsdon Key fingerprint = A2 D1 1B 7E 03 38 5D 75 BF 0C D0 08 AA 57 E8 80 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMCNahYZy9QROVJSBAQGcyQP+InyLjDtvaJICAY8AYnNSrMfexbjZpj95 Qu/BseUlk+Y75rhcnsCJ5hC3v72TLFK0e6y228UO7Kb3fqtzwfUWgQRQ+Rsz+PPQ OSBvTsJ6qNKXireEYTyXEhPECBVTydwNRwyDSfF2DGIs71GtmVs5rc1DxW01d3QI hPVrz37iZQ8= =L57P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Aug 95 10:15:37 +0200 From: Kristensen.L.Bjorn@cdc.com Subject: UUPC via TCP To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Is there anyone who has tried to connect UUPC via TCP/IP I have tried using the modem file for TCP included in UUPC 1.12k When I try I get the error messages ChooseCommunications: Invalid suite name TCP/IP Could not connect to remote system If I try to change the suite to for example INT14 I get the error messages callup XXXXXX via TCP at 19200 on Wed aug ...................................... Communications port must be format COMx, was network Please help Regards Bjorn ------------------------------ End of UUPC-Info-Request Digest ******************************