Date: Wed, 3 Jan 96 04:06:43 PST From: Snuffles@kew.com Subject: UUPC-Info-Request Digest 1995 #53 To: uupc-info-digest@kew.com Message-ID: Reply-To: UUPC-Info-Request@kew.com UUPC-Info-Request Digest Wed, 3 Jan 96 Volume 1995: Issue 53 Today's Topics: error with mailchek gatewaying mail into file gatewaying mail to LAN Has anybody succeeded in transferring large files to a Taylor? history news fixes newsrun error Question re subdomain routing TCP/IP connections tcp/ip with 16 bit OS/2 version UUPC-Info-Request Digest 1995 #50 (2 msgs) uupc 1.12p (OS/2 32 bit mode) seems to ignore the '-n' parameter uupc vs. Winsock.. Why uupc Why uupc over tcp/ip 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. Note: Questions on UUPC/extended itself which are not of general interest should be sent to help@kew.com, not to the mailing list. Nor questions should be posted on Usenet, we don't read it. (Much.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 Dec 95 22:28:00 +0100 From: peter@pgeck.sub.org Subject: error with mailchek To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hi, I am getting errors with some of the cmd-files which come with UUPC (I forgot to mention in my previous mail that I am using the OS/2 32bit version). One example with mailchek: F:\uupc>mailchek 25 +++ initcode = VInit(); REX0043: Error 43 running F:\uupc\bin\mailchek.cmd, line 25: Routine not found Obviously something is missing but I don't know what. I have rexx installed and there is some vrobj.dll which should have to do something with visual rexx (?) although I can't see what is 'visual' with something like mailchek... Bye Peter ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Dec 95 20:29:59 +0100 From: peter@pgeck.sub.org Subject: gatewaying mail into file To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hi, I am getting mail from different mailing lists and want to have it separated on arrival. According to the docs this should be possible by setting up an alias (in aliases) like this: uupcl: f:/user/peter/uupcl.spb Mail for uupcl@pgeck.sub.org should then be saved as mail in the above file. But it doesn't work for me. If there is no entry in passwd for uupcl the mail is bounced. If I add the entry the mail is saved in uupc\mail\uupcl.spb. What am I missing? Tschuess Peter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Dec 95 6:29:20 +0100 From: peter@pgeck.sub.org Subject: gatewaying mail to LAN To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hi, I have a small LAN running via tcpip (OS/2). One machine (pgeck) will have to serve as server for all communication purposes. It has a dialup connection to the Internet and receives mail and news via uucp over tcpip. I want to get access to news and mail from two other systems on the LAN. There should be no problem with news by using NNTP. But what about mail? I would like to forward incoming mail via SMTP. But there are two problems. Reading the docs I have the impression I need a gateway program. Or could mail just be piped into sendmail? Second problem is related to the notorious OS/2 sendmail. I am not able to get mail queued if the IP connection is down. Sendmail keeps telling me that the mail could not be delivered and get queued but nothing shows up in tcpip/etc/mqueue and the mail will never be delivered... Bye Peter ------------------------------ Date: 03 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0000 From: hajo@quijote.in-berlin.de Subject: Has anybody succeeded in transferring large files to a Taylor? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hi, meanwhile, I met one more serious problem with UUPC (OS/2 32). It won't talk to Unix sites. At least not those with a Taylor uucico (1.05), which means all Unix sites practically. I can receive any file or filesize. I can send small files with mail or news. But I'm not able to copy over any big files. With uucp-v 1024, the connection will be killed by the Taylor for too many protocol errors. It looks as if both sides don't agree about CRC computation. With uucp-g, UUPC will happily receive 1024, but send 64 only. This nails the connection to 1000 cps max. Since uucp-v is just an uucp-g with less restrictions by default, I've done a comparison check with my DOS site. In a DOS VDM, I can uucp-g-transfer with both 1024 and 4096 blocksize and variable packetsize with 0 errors, using Crosspoint instead of UUPC. The first I tried then was (forgive me, Drew) wether it is just wrong binary handling. Not. The uuencoded file failed as well. Therefore the question: Was anybody able to send a really large file (1 meg or more) to a Taylor uucico using 1024 blocksize or 512 at least? hajo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Dec 95 22:04:47 +0100 From: peter@pgeck.sub.org Subject: history To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hi, I would like to know how to set expiry times for the history files. As far as I know it should be possible to keep the history e. g. for 14 days where the articles are expired after three days. A duplicate article would then be found in the history and be rejected although already expired. I haven't found anything in the docs. But as expire is very unflexible I am afraid the history is no real history but just a database of articles which are still existing... Bye Peter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 21:13:46 -0500 From: Software@kew.com Subject: news fixes To: UUPC/Extended mailing list While I have been silent over the holidays, I have not been idle. First off, I toasted my ethernet card EPROM. *sigh* Fortunately, it's under warranty, but it's been a distraction. Second, I got "Lode Runner, the Legend Returns" to run on my system. Now THAT's a distraction. But I've been fighting video problems with it for 14 months -- this is a moral victory. Happier news, however, is that I fixed many of the problems with news (with the noted exception of DOS out of memory errors and some SYS file parsing). In particular, the following changes were made for 1.12r, some of which I've previously mentioned, but several of which are new: Improper truncation of the active file is now trapped. New active files are written to under temporary name, and if output is incomplete the various programs abort rather than truncate the file. Selected buffers and counter have been increased in size to prevent overflows during history processing in 16 bit environments. The entire active file structure has been converted to a single red/black binary tree. This has several effects: Active files are no longer truncated An 11000 group active file loads in about 4 seconds on a 486 DX2/66, compared to 8 seconds for the previous release (using multiple naive binary trees) and darn near forever in the pre-August versions (using a simple linked list.) Slightly less memory usage The length check for group names has been tightened to insure compiler specific limits on file names are not exceeded. For example, in the old MS C 6.00a compiler for 16 bit OS/2, the manifest constant for file name length is only 63 characters -- group names plus the news directory name must be less than that. This works out to be about 44 characters news groups names using the standard X:\uupc\news directory. Note: Most compilers allow at least 80 characters for names, so except for some really demented alt.* groups, this is not a problem. The user (password) table is now properly reallocated if needed. Also, the table is no longer scanned for every new entry, improving load times. The table is sorted after loading and checked once for duplicates. Likewise, the user nickname file is no longer scanned for every new entry. The table is sorted after loading and checked once for duplicates. Finally, the configuration file variable lookup has been restructured from a linear search to a binary search. Note: These latter two changes appear to combine to shave about .5 seconds program execution for a simple program such as UUNAME. I'm about ready to put out 1.12r for test. Sorry for the delay, stay tuned... -- Drew Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: software@kew.com Telephone: 617-279-9712 Help! I am a captive of lousy response time on first level CP! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Dec 95 7:51:42 +0100 From: peter@pgeck.sub.org Subject: newsrun error To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hi, today I have got an error during processing of news. I had a look at the news file and can't see anything abnormal. The file has already been uncompressed so there can be no problem with uncompressing. If you are interested I have kept the news file... the error looked like this: [F:\tmp]rnews.exe 0 Greetings! I am glad to report that after many trials we have finally gotten UUPC to work with our provider over tcp/ip and we are sending and receiving mail succesfuly several times daily. If others are having trouble setting it, perhaps I can help with examples of how we did it here. It works really well. Now, we are setting up a uucp neighbor who will dial into our system and get mail from us. The mail is addressed like this for users of his system: username@neighborsystem.oursystem.ourprovider.net but when we get the mail from our provider, the control file makes no mention of the neighborsystem subdomain. There, the C line reads simply C rmail username which causes the mail to be delivered wrong (to postmaster here unless we set up each of the neighboirsystem's users with a separate entry in our ALIASES file, a workaround which is cumbersome and surely not necessary). What I need from our provider instead is a control file that makes a mention of the subdomain, if the mail came not to our central system but to a subdomain originally. Like this: C rmail neighborsystem!username What does my provider have to do so that his system is aware of this and generates the control files to me correctly? PLEASE HELP> I am sure it is some quick entry, but reading the manual has not made it clear to me (yet) where we do it or even how... Best regards, and a happy new years, --colmarr@dino.conicit.ve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 13:55:41 -0500 From: oss!conrad@uunet.uu.net Subject: TCP/IP connections To: UUPC/Extended mailing list I am trying to connect, using TCP/IP, to a uucp server that doesn't have a tcp/ip uucp port. It does, however, have tcp/ip and internet access. Is it not possible to, rather than go through the uucp port, instead go through the telnet port and log in the same way that my UUPC script used to do when dialing in? That is, the only difference would be that the physical connection would be by internet rather than by direct dial modem. The script would be the same; g protocol would still be used, etc. -- Conrad Sigona Open Systems Solutions, Inc. conrad@oss.com 1-609-987-9073 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 10:49:04 -0500 From: oss!conrad@uunet.uu.net Subject: tcp/ip with 16 bit OS/2 version To: UUPC/Extended mailing list I'm running the 16 bit OS/2 version of uupc, as shown below mail: UUPC/extended 1.12p (OS/2 16 bit mode, 08Nov95 00:44). I've not run the 32 bit version because there was a warning in the documentation that the 32 bit is not stable. My problem is TCP/IP. I cannot establish a connection using TCP/IP because UUPC doesn't recognize 'suite=tcp/ip" in the modem file. I'm guessing that this tcp/ip support is found in the 32 bit version of UUPC, but not in the 16 bit. 1) Are TCP/IP connections supported in the 16 bit OS/2 version of 1.12p? 2) If not, is the 32 bit version more stable than the docs imply? -- Conrad Sigona Open Systems Solutions, Inc. conrad@oss.com 1-609-987-9073 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 13:40:03 +1100 (AEDT) From: adamc@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU Subject: UUPC-Info-Request Digest 1995 #50 To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Sat, 9 Dec 1995 Snuffles@kew.com wrote: > Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 20:06:14 GMT > From: m-kemper@therefore.com > Subject: hayes Optima 28.8 > To: UUPC/Extended mailing list > > Does someone have the MDM file for this modem? > > Thanks > > Mark Kemper Here's the .MDM file I use for my Hayes Accura 28.8, it's probably good for the Optima also, give it a try. Cheers ---Snip--- Description=Hayes Accura 288 V.34/V.FC + FAX, disabling command echo Answer=CONNECT/REL Ring="" \pATS0=1 OK-ATS0=1-OK "" RING AnswerTimeout=30 Connect=CONNECT NoConnect="NO DIALTONE" "BUSY" "NO CARRIER" Device=COM2 DialPrefix=\pATDT DialTimeout=60 Initialize="" \r\dATZ OK-ATZ-OK-\d\d+++\d\d-OK \pATM0E0&D2X4S0=0 OK ModemTimeout=5 options=fixedspeed carrierdetect InSpeed=19200 ---Snip--- _______________________________________________________________________________ Adam Clarke adamc@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 13:40:03 +1100 (AEDT) From: adamc@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU Subject: UUPC-Info-Request Digest 1995 #50 To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Sat, 9 Dec 1995 Snuffles@kew.com wrote: > Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 20:06:14 GMT > From: m-kemper@therefore.com > Subject: hayes Optima 28.8 > To: UUPC/Extended mailing list > > Does someone have the MDM file for this modem? > > Thanks > > Mark Kemper Here's the .MDM file I use for my Hayes Accura 28.8, it's probably good for the Optima also, give it a try. Cheers ---Snip--- Description=Hayes Accura 288 V.34/V.FC + FAX, disabling command echo Answer=CONNECT/REL Ring="" \pATS0=1 OK-ATS0=1-OK "" RING AnswerTimeout=30 Connect=CONNECT NoConnect="NO DIALTONE" "BUSY" "NO CARRIER" Device=COM2 DialPrefix=\pATDT DialTimeout=60 Initialize="" \r\dATZ OK-ATZ-OK-\d\d+++\d\d-OK \pATM0E0&D2X4S0=0 OK ModemTimeout=5 options=fixedspeed carrierdetect InSpeed=19200 ---Snip--- _______________________________________________________________________________ Adam Clarke adamc@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Dec 95 17:50:35 +0100 From: arnd@ag.mz.rhein-main.de Subject: uupc 1.12p (OS/2 32 bit mode) seems to ignore the '-n' parameter To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hello, I'm trying to tell uucico to call despite limitations in the systems file (ie. Wk1800-0800,Sa,Su) by adding the '-n' parameter to the call, but I receive the usual "No work for requested system or wrong time to call.". Am I doing something wrong? Messages: uucico: UUPC/extended 1.12p (OS/2 32 bit mode, 7Nov95 23:44) No work for requested system or wrong time to call. Thanks in advance and begards, Arnd +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Arnd Gronenberg arnd@ag.rhein-main.de | | PGP 2.6.2i public key available on request | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 95 13:24:20 EST From: cmaurand@biddeford.com Subject: uupc vs. Winsock.. To: UUPC/Extended mailing list > >News and mail then traverse this link, with their own protocols (SMTP, > >NNTP), so I am not sure what it means for uucp to be more efficient; >than what? > >> People have found that it's more efficient to ship >>all Usenet news over UUCP over TCP/IP than it is to try to negotiate >>out with your next-door neighbors about which news articles you have, > >>and which they have -- the latter is part of a news protocol called >NNTP. >-- isn't this issue independent of which lower level protocol is used >to transact the news? with any underlying protocol one can subscribe >to batched news delivery. Again NNTP is a higher level protocol. Yes, its a higher level protocol, but it is not very efficient. UUCP allows News to be compressed and sent in batches. The problem with NNTP is that there is a lot of overhead with things like "I have"..."send me". Makes for a lot of 2 way traffic, context switching, etc. By using UUCP, all of it comes in a stream. > Curtis Maurand System Administrator - Maine Meeting Place sysadmin@mmp.org cmaurand@biddeford.com (207)324-2337 - voice (207)324-5310 - data ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 09:44:09 From: jms@bkbn.be Subject: Why uupc To: UUPC/Extended mailing list >+It is interesting to wonder why users of UUPC choose it, is it for >+these technical reasons, or historical reasons, or familiarity, or ..?= > >My reason for uupc is that it allows me to have more than one user here= >with only a single connecion from my ISP. > >The reason for using tcp/ip is that I only have one phone line (for the= = >computer). If I have it running PPP, then I still want mail to get = through. >I still use dial up UUCP the rest of the time. Sounds like UUCP/USENET protocol, in general, makes a lot of sense on = single user environments like DOS or OS/2. Even on LANs (limited multi-user), where one unique machine behaves as a= = gateway for the others. Interesting to know if UNIX or NT users also think so. My feeling is that UUCP protocol is a very efficient way to deal with = internet adresses and domains, without having to now about IP adresses a= nd = configurations, and still not rely on the access provider for creating a= nd = maintaining mailboxes. That is actually the big difference with other = popular E-Mail packages; the mailboxes are actually on my computer, not = on = provider's. Though again, this is also true for UNIX user with complete IP = configurations. Also UUCP is probably safer against hackers (no internet IP connection t= o = my computer). Though I heard of virusses propagated by mail !?? -- Jean-Marc SOUFFRIAU Phone & Fax: +32 2 3753402 jms@bkbn.be Address: BACKBONE Consultants = jms@ains.aton.net avenue prince de Ligne, 80 Brussels, Belgium 1180 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 17:18:00 -0800 From: don@reid.corvallis.or.us Subject: Why uupc over tcp/ip To: UUPC/Extended mailing list +It is interesting to wonder why users of UUPC choose it, is it for +these technical reasons, or historical reasons, or familiarity, or ..? My reason for uupc is that it allows me to have more than one user here with only a single connecion from my ISP. The reason for using tcp/ip is that I only have one phone line (for the computer). If I have it running PPP, then I still want mail to get through. I still use dial up UUCP the rest of the time. -- Don Reid Home: Office: e-mail don@reid.corvallis.or.us donr@cv.hp.com phone 541-754-0707 541-715-2726 address 3325 NW McKinley Dr. 1000 NE Circle Blvd. Corvallis, OR 97330 Corvallis, OR 97330 USA USA ------------------------------ End of UUPC-Info-Request Digest ******************************