Date: Mon, 22 Jan 96 00:06:47 PST From: Snuffles@kew.com Subject: UUPC-Info-Request Digest 1996 #3 To: uupc-info-digest@kew.com Message-ID: Reply-To: UUPC-Info-Request@kew.com UUPC-Info-Request Digest Mon, 22 Jan 96 Volume 1996: Issue 3 Today's Topics: 1.12r available mailserver can be local? (2 msgs) Message box from uucico (2 msgs) Problems with uucico version 'p' Question re subdomain routing Sent and Received files number uucico general protection fault (2 msgs) UUPC/Ext. & WindowsNT (2 msgs) Windows NT version 'p' (2 msgs) 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: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 21:54:34 -0500 From: XHelp@kew.com Subject: 1.12r available To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Release 1.12r is available for testing. This includes numerous news fixes, various large table fixes, and other changes as detailed below. Note that the offical documents are still at 1.12p level, although the Word For Windows source of the 1.12r documents is in the test archive. The ftp.clarkson.edu archive is being loaded as I type. For those wishing to browse or print the raw source document without WfW, the Microsoft freeware program WORDVU.EXE has been added to the tools directory. This program is also available from its original source, namely ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/Softlib/MSLFILES/WORDVU.EXE. Many thanks to Will Rose for locating WordView for me. Bug Fixes When the local user table (loaded from the passwd file) was nearly full, reallocation of the table was done improperly, causing the loading program to crash. The fast in-memory temporary file routines always operate in binary mode, never text mode. This causes problems when disk is used as backing storage and the file is passed directly into another program. Corrected imopen() to allow specifying text or binary processing modes. Previously, various grossly invalid addresses could cause either a program panic or, in some cases, a program crash. The validation of address formats by the mail routines has been stengthened and unparsable addresses are rejected by rmail and other programs are now gracefully with an error message without terminating all other processing. If RMAIL read a UUCP From line which was incomplete, the program would crash because of an invalid pointer. Corrected to supply defaults for missing information on the From line. Internal references (including source file names) nickname processing to have been updated to be consistent with the external documentation. Various buffering and index sizes within the news history routines were inconsistent between 16 bit and 32 bit compilers and internally among 16 bit routines. Corrected to allow consistent buffers and index of sufficient size for history processing. Various news history functions failed to report the nature of errors they incurred. Corrected to reported standard C run-time library errors as needed. Processing of news control messages was broken because of a parsing error. This has been corrected. News header processing was done in a case sensitive fashion by inews. Corrected to ignore case. The news ACTIVE file moduler tended to randomly drop news groups from its internal list, and also to suffer from various performance and memory related issues. The entire active file processing module has been rewritten to use a single red-black binary tree, which allows fast lookups while retaining low-overhead loading of the active file. Because news active files were written out on top of the previous edition of the file, an error when writing the file would cause the loss of the data. Corrected to write the file out to a temporary name and then rename the file to the true name after verifing the number of entries. Longer news groups names in the active file could cause file name buffers to overflow. Overlength news groups names are now rejected at active file load time, preventing their use in file names. The OS/2 pnews command added a Path: header line to the news article to be posted. This should be left to the inews program; the insertion of the line is now deleted from the pnews command. If UUPOLL was built with debugging enabled, multiple copies of the program could started at the same time could cause one program to abort when a logging file could not be opened. Corrected to use the normal retry functions available from the FOPEN function. FOSSIL serial port drivers did not work if UUCICO was built with the Microsoft VC compiler because of problems retrieving serial port data. Corrected retrieval routine to work under MS C compiler. Under OS/2, UUX did properly process data in binary mode. Corrected by opening new binary input stream rather than copying standard in. Under DOS with the MS VC compiler, stack overflows continued to be common under most programs built as .COM files. All modules are now built as .EXE files rather than .COM files. Enhancements The various configuration files, including UUPC.RC, modem files, and PERMISSN used a linear scan of the lookup table for loading. This routine has been changed to perform a faster binary search. The local user table was checked for duplicates on every single user; this required repeated linear scans of the table and impacted load performance. Corrected to only scan the table for duplicates once after table is fully loaded. The system alias processor now reports the number of aliases loaded after higher debug levels. -- Drew Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: software@kew.com Telephone: 617-279-9712 "Don't blame me, I voted for Snuffles P. Bear!" - President@WhiteHouse.Gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 15:04:37 +0100 From: treggia@mbox.vol.it Subject: mailserver can be local? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list I have 2 MS-DOS PC with uucp connected togeter via a null-modem cable. They have this configuration files: machine newsw: | machine z9bbs: | uucp.rc file: | uucp.rc file: Nodename=newsw | Nodename=z9bbs Domain=z9bbs.uucp | Domain=z9bbs.uucp postmaster=logz9bbs | postmaster=logz9bbs Mailserv=z9bbs | Mailserv=z9mail | personal.rc file: | personal.rc file: Mailbox=lognewsw | Mailbox=logz9bbs | systems file: | systems file: z9bbs Any DIR 19200 \c vg | newsw Any Dir 19200 \c vg gin: lognewsw word: pswnewsw | gin: logz9bbs word: pswz9bbs | z9mail Never Dir 19200 \c | permissn file: | permissn file: logname=logz9bbs validate=z9bbs \ | machine=OTHER myname=logz9bbs \ machine=z9bbs read=/ write=/ \ | sendfiles=yes commands=ALL \ sendfiles=yes request=yes \ | read=/ write=/ commands=ALL | logname=lognewsw validate=newsw \ | machine=newsw read=c:/z9bbs \ | write=c:/z9bbs sendfiles=yes \ | request=yes commands=rmail:mail | passwd file: |passwd file: postmast:*::::c:/z9bbs/home | postmast:*::::c:/z9bbs/mail lognewsw:pswnewsw::::c:/z9bbs/home | logz9bbs:pswz9bbs::::c:/z9bbs/mail logz9bbs:pswz9bbs::::z:/z9bbs | lognewsw:pswz9bbs::::c:/z9bbs/mail | tree directory: |tree directory: c:\z9bbs |c:\z9bbs |> mail | |> mail |> bin | |> bin |> spool | |> spool |> home | |> home Problems: 1) When, in machine z9bbs, I call "mail" I have the message: "c:\z9bbs\mail\logz9bbs.SPB: "Permission denied"" but if I call "mail -u logz9bbs" all is OK. Why? Where I have wrong configuration files? 2) When, in machine newsw, I call "mail -s "xxx" logz9bbs" mail is local, rmail is not invoched and is not send to machine z9bbs. All is ok if I call "mail -s "xxx" logz9bbs!z9bbs": what is wrong? 3) I don't have a mailserver "z9mail" and I want that the machine z9bbs is the mail server for the domain, but I can't write in uucp.rc "Mailserv=z9bbs": how can I write the configuration files on z9bbs to have a local mail server which is the same machine? Thank you for your reply. Andrea Treggia ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 11:59:14 -0500 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: mailserver can be local? To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Wed, 17 Jan 1996 15:04:37 +0100, treggia@mbox.vol.it wrote: > I have 2 MS-DOS PC with uucp connected togeter via a null-modem cable. > They have this configuration files: > > machine newsw: | machine z9bbs: > | > uucp.rc file: | uucp.rc file: > Nodename=newsw | Nodename=z9bbs > Domain=z9bbs.uucp | Domain=z9bbs.uucp > postmaster=logz9bbs | postmaster=logz9bbs > Mailserv=z9bbs | Mailserv=z9mail > | > personal.rc file: | personal.rc file: > Mailbox=lognewsw | Mailbox=logz9bbs > | > systems file: | systems file: > z9bbs Any DIR 19200 \c vg | newsw Any Dir 19200 \c vg > gin: lognewsw word: pswnewsw | gin: logz9bbs word: pswz9bbs > | z9mail Never Dir 19200 \c On the left, you have "logz9bbs" as the active user to receive mail on the local system. As on the right, you have ""logz9bbs" as a login for a remote system. DO NOT DO THIS, use unique names for local users and remote users logging in. It appears you are confusing system names and local user names. Don't repeat your names. use the models in the installation guide, call your login's for remote systems Usysname (Uz9bbs), and NEVER, NEVER, EVER send mail to that user id. Send mail to users on that system by the syntax user@domainname. > | > permissn file: | permissn file: > logname=logz9bbs validate=z9bbs \ | machine=OTHER myname=logz9bbs \ > machine=z9bbs read=/ write=/ \ | sendfiles=yes commands=ALL \ > sendfiles=yes request=yes \ | read=/ write=/ > commands=ALL | logname=lognewsw validate=newsw \ > | machine=newsw read=c:/z9bbs \ > | write=c:/z9bbs sendfiles=yes \ > | request=yes commands=rmail:mail > | > passwd file: |passwd file: > postmast:*::::c:/z9bbs/home | postmast:*::::c:/z9bbs/mail > lognewsw:pswnewsw::::c:/z9bbs/home | logz9bbs:pswz9bbs::::c:/z9bbs/mail > logz9bbs:pswz9bbs::::z:/z9bbs | lognewsw:pswz9bbs::::c:/z9bbs/mail > | > tree directory: |tree directory: > c:\z9bbs |c:\z9bbs > |> mail | |> mail > |> bin | |> bin > |> spool | |> spool > |> home | |> home Do not specify home directories for remote systems logging in, let it default to the public directory. Do not create personal.rc files for user ids used to login. Do not put home directories in the same tree as the system directories. This will only lead to confusion, since UUPC/extended can create directories (mostly the ones you already see). Also, use unique home directories at the same level for each user while debugging, as in: \u\postmast \u\ahd \u\myuserid Home directories can be shared in a production configuration, but you're still sorting things out. > Problems: > 1) When, in machine z9bbs, I call "mail" I have the message: > "c:\z9bbs\mail\logz9bbs.SPB: "Permission denied"" > but if I call "mail -u logz9bbs" all is OK. > Why? Where I have wrong configuration files? Your configuration files are incomplete, and do not (for example) list the home directory in the active personal.rc. I would expect the home directory "c:\z9bbs\mail" is invalid, that you put a file there (rather than a subdirectory) and now it can't create files under it. > 2) When, in machine newsw, I call "mail -s "xxx" logz9bbs" mail is local, > rmail is not invoched and is not send to machine z9bbs. > All is ok if I call "mail -s "xxx" logz9bbs!z9bbs": what is wrong? That's how it works, local mail is delivered locally. You must explicitly address mail to remote systems unless site hiding, which you did not configure your system for. > 3) I don't have a mailserver "z9mail" and I want that the machine z9bbs > is the mail server for the domain, but I can't write in uucp.rc > "Mailserv=z9bbs": how can I write the configuration files on z9bbs > to have a local mail server which is the same machine? You _always_ have a mailserver. You may not route anything to it, but the configuration requires one. You can point the systems at each other if you have no _outside_ connection. -- 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. "It's not good for an old memory to mean so much today . . ." - Night Ranger ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 96 17:44:07 +0000 From: sysop@mome.apk.net Subject: Message box from uucico To: UUPC/Extended mailing list 100013.3330@compuserve.com wrote: > > Hello, > > There is a little 'feature' which it would be a good idea to change in the > Windows 3.1 executable of uucico. > If the modem fails to initialise you get a message box on which you have to > click OK. I think this is not a good thing - and errors should be reported in a > log file only. The modem initialise script can fail if the modem is being reset > just as a call comes in (for example just after uupoll has called the program > specified with the -B option)- I saw it happen! Then the whole thing gets stuck > until someone clicks on OK - not good for error recovery. > > What do you think? I think I would agree. UUPC should be as stand-alone, non-operator required as is reasonable. Sounds like someone got a little carried away with Windows dialog box programming :) I could see maybe a dialog box that does not stop the program from functioning in the background. It's been a long time, and it was very painful, so I don't remember all of the details of how to do this. John ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 11:39:19 -0500 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: Message box from uucico To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On 16 Jan 96 05:22:26 EST, 100013.3330@compuserve.com wrote: > There is a little 'feature' which it would be a good idea to change in the > Windows 3.1 executable of uucico. > If the modem fails to initialise you get a message box on which you have to > click OK. I think this is not a good thing - and errors should be reported in a > log file only. The modem initialise script can fail if the modem is being reset > just as a call comes in (for example just after uupoll has called the program > specified with the -B option)- I saw it happen! Then the whole thing gets stuck > until someone clicks on OK - not good for error recovery. No, because that box is actually the program panic box, not a normal error message. If the modem will not initialize, fix the initialize string so it will, or drop out to DOS to run uucico -r0. I don't consider Windows 3.1 stable enough to run an unattended server mode in any case -- it's because UUCICO is prone to fail and requires attention that it uses pop-up boxes on panics. I would suggest you switch to Windows NT, Windows 95, or OS/2 rather than trying to use the 16 bit Windows 3.1 version in server mode. All three of the latter versions (actually Win 95 users should use the NT UUPC/extended version) are more robust and complete. None of the text versions do pop-up boxes, since they all support standard console windows which allow messages from multiple invocations (and the panic is not immediately lost). -ahd- -- 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. "It's not good for an old memory to mean so much today . . ." - Night Ranger ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 11:32:07 -0500 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: Problems with uucico version 'p' To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On 16 Jan 96 00:00:19 EST, 100013.3330@compuserve.com wrote: > Thanks for your speedy reply: My replies have not been speedy this winter. Blizzards and other demands have somewhat taxed me. > > >> I am currently trying to install DOS UUPC as a server - I am using > >> version 'p'. When I run uucico -r0 it usually reports a memory > >> allocation failure. > > > >Where? There are perhaps over 100 places that the program allocates > >memory during different stages, knowing the failure area is very > >important. > > Here is the relevant chunk of the log file. If I run at a higher > level of debugging it seems its after the modem cfg file is loaded > I don' think it stops in exactly the same place every time - I think > I have seen it stop at line eight hundred and something but I cannot > be sure. > > 01/16-10:40 UUCICO: UUPC/extended 1.12p (Nov 8 1995 07:29:54) > 01/16-10:40 Storage allocation failure; possible cause: memory shortage. > 01/16-10:40 UUCICO aborting at line 740 in file lib\configur.c Curious. Send me the uupc.rc and active personal.rc files privately (software@kew.com). How large are the permissn, passwd, and systems files? (Note, send the files as text, not uuencoded!) > >Since UUPC/extended does not use extended memory, overall memory does > >not matter but rather memory free under 640K and more importantly, the > >amount of near memory (which is limited by the processor to 64K). Have > >you run MEMMAKER? > > Yes - I think my CFG and Autoexec are optimised and minimal - I have > 609k of DOS memory. I don't understand your point about near memory - what > memory model are you using - surely not tiny? medium and large limit > you to 64k per array (can't remember about small - its a little while since > I did C++ programming) We use the medium model for UUCICO, and most data is allocated in near memory of which is there is only 1 64K segment -- far memory, which has the 64K _per_ _array_, is only used for selected large items like communications buffers. > >> I wonder if it has been compiled with optimisations for 486 on? > > > >We switched compilers (BC to MS) between the two versions; both were set > >to use standard optimizations, but are not optimized for a particular > >processor. > > Maybe there is a difference in the granularity of the heap between > these two compilers or the MS library is just fatter or something? > I haven't used MS C only BC. There are numerous differences in the compilers, however the point is no other users have reported memory allocation failures during configuration under DOS. Hence, I need to understand your configuration better. -- 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. "It's not good for an old memory to mean so much today . . ." - Night Ranger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 19:54:28 -0800 From: bobdodd@ehwhat.sheperd.com Subject: Question re subdomain routing To: UUPC/Extended mailing list >>On Thu, 28 Dec 1995 colmarr@conicit.ve wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> >> >On Sun, 7 Jan 1996 15:52:11 -0500 (EST) cmaurand@biddeford.com replied: > I might think about getting your provider to modify his/her sendmail >to refelct that all mail for your neighbors system to be deliverred to >your system. (If you both have different domain names) Then use the >hostpaths system to specify that all mail to that system be delivered to >that host. I made this work, as soon as I get access to that drive >again, I will send you copies of my uupc.rc and hostpath file. We have also succeeded in this by setting the LocalDomain parameter in UUPC.RC to match the Domain parameter. Our ISP forwards all mail for our domain to us. RMAIL will recognize the LocalDomain parameter and check the next system to the left against known systems. If a match exists, the mail is delivered. The downstream machines are configured as thatsite.ourdomain.com. We are using no ALIAS or HOSTPATHS with this method. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bob Dodd Ministry Systems ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 20:55:15 -0500 From: oide@ghislieri.telnetwork.it Subject: Sent and Received files number To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Im a new UUPC user so, please, be indulgent (-: I am currently using UUPC 1.12k for OS/2 and I'am very happy with it. What I can't understand is why the number of file sent and received is always the double of what I would expect. There is a particular reason for this ? Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 96 05:04:25 EST From: 100013.3330@compuserve.com Subject: uucico general protection fault To: UUPC/Extended mailing list UUCICO version 'p' for Windows NT running under Windows 95 Under Windows 95 the uucico program sometimes gives a page fault before exiting if there has been a failed attempt to login with a bad user name and password UUCICO caused an invalid page fault in module UUCICO.EXE at 0137:0040f7f0. Registers: EAX=000095ed CS=0137 EIP=0040f7f0 EFLGS=00010206 EBX=30fe2382 SS=013f ESP=0066f83c EBP=00431de8 ECX=00000042 DS=013f ESI=0000001e FS=38ef EDX=00000000 ES=013f EDI=00000001 GS=0000 Bytes at CS:EIP: c6 84 04 58 01 00 00 00 e8 9b 66 00 00 83 c4 10 Stack dump: 004301c8 00000004 00000001 00431de8 00000000 00000001 0000001e 0056007a 004295ab 00000000 00000004 0066fae8 0066fab4 0066fb29 00000049 00000000 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 12:05:33 -0500 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: uucico general protection fault To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On 18 Jan 96 05:04:25 EST, 100013.3330@compuserve.com wrote: > UUCICO version 'p' for Windows NT running under Windows 95 > > Under Windows 95 the uucico program sometimes gives a page fault > before exiting if there has been a failed attempt to login > with a bad user name and password > > > UUCICO caused an invalid page fault in > module UUCICO.EXE at 0137:0040f7f0. > Registers: > EAX=000095ed CS=0137 EIP=0040f7f0 EFLGS=00010206 > EBX=30fe2382 SS=013f ESP=0066f83c EBP=00431de8 > ECX=00000042 DS=013f ESI=0000001e FS=38ef > EDX=00000000 ES=013f EDI=00000001 GS=0000 > Bytes at CS:EIP: > c6 84 04 58 01 00 00 00 e8 9b 66 00 00 83 c4 10 > Stack dump: > 004301c8 00000004 00000001 00431de8 00000000 00000001 > 0000001e 0056007a 004295ab 00000000 00000004 0066fae8 > 0066fab4 0066fb29 00000049 00000000 Curious. Can you send me a log directly to software@kew.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. "It's not good for an old memory to mean so much today . . ." - Night Ranger ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 06:57:11 +0400 (GMT+0400) From: zpit@ssu.samara.emnet.ru Subject: UUPC/Ext. & WindowsNT To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hi, all! Is it possible, to setup UUPC & Sendmail on the same WinNT server & make this mashine act as UUCP/SMTP gateway ? If YES, please mail me about this or tell me the way how can i get more info. Thanx. Best Regards. Peter Zhigulin zpit@ssu.samara.emnet.ru ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 12:04:26 -0500 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: UUPC/Ext. & WindowsNT To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Fri, 19 Jan 1996 06:57:11 +0400 (GMT+0400), zpit@ssu.samara.emnet.ru wrote: > Is it possible, to setup UUPC & Sendmail on the same WinNT > server & make this mashine act as UUCP/SMTP gateway ? > > If YES, please mail me about this or tell me the way > how can i get more info. Different people (not the people who to UUPC/extended itself) have done UUPC/extended gateways to MS-MAIL. You need would one of those, of course, and the MS-Mail SMTP gateway. -- 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. "It's not good for an old memory to mean so much today . . ." - Night Ranger ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 96 05:04:35 EST From: 100013.3330@compuserve.com Subject: Windows NT version 'p' To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hello, I would like to report a little problem that I found in the Windows NT version of UUPC/p. I am running it under Windows 95 and I notice that when you have 'options = syslog' set in UUPC.RC, uucico puts the file in the directory that it was run from, while uutraff looks for it in the spool directory...... I can get round this of course by starting uucico from the spool directory so its not vital.... Thanks again, Nick Waltham ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 12:02:46 -0500 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: Windows NT version 'p' To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On 18 Jan 96 05:04:35 EST, 100013.3330@compuserve.com wrote: > I would like to report a little problem that I found in the Windows NT version > of UUPC/p. I am running it under Windows 95 and I notice that when you have > 'options = syslog' set in UUPC.RC, uucico puts the file in the directory that it > was run from, while uutraff looks for it in the spool directory...... I can get > round this of course by starting uucico from the spool directory so its not > vital.... Send me your uupc.rc file. UUCICO issues a change directorty to the spool directory, so when opening SYSLOG this should be written to the spool directory. Are you attempting to run the spool directory off a UNC name or some such? -ahd- -- 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. "It's not good for an old memory to mean so much today . . ." - Night Ranger ------------------------------ End of UUPC-Info-Request Digest ******************************