Date: Wed, 21 Feb 96 15:06:08 PST From: Snuffles@kew.com Subject: UUPC-Info-Request Digest 1996 #6 To: uupc-info-digest@kew.com Message-ID: Reply-To: UUPC-Info-Request@kew.com UUPC-Info-Request Digest Wed, 21 Feb 96 Volume 1996: Issue 6 Today's Topics: Base64 (3 msgs) double domain (aliasing domain) Help with provider mess News and Windows 95 newsrun is probably broken. RMAIL Needed for WIN95 Strange bouncing behaviour TenFour Systems TFS Gateway and license agreement. (2 msgs) UUPC suddenly stops working 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, 13 Feb 1996 20:31:19 -0500 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Mon, 5 Feb 96 10:58 EST, eli%ICEC@mcimail.com wrote: > To: uucp-info!internet!uupc-info+akew+ocom@mcilink > does uupc-info work with microsft mail and how? The particular question is that various third party packages will move mail from one to the other. You sent several very basic questions, one question per mail message, to over 200 people on the general discussion and support list. Please read the documents available on ftp.clarkson.edu in pub to get started, or send "HELP" to listserv@Kew.com for automated help via e-mail. Also, batch up your questions and send them in one mail message, it both puts the questions in context and is faster to handle. Then, after you have read the documents, you can feel free send mail to help@kew.com, where we can handle your question without bothering all the subscribers to the list. Also, batch up your questions and send them in one mail message, it both puts the questions in context and is faster to handle. Thanks -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. "AT&T is a modem test command." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 01:27:44 -0800 From: dan@fch.wimsey.bc.ca Subject: Base64 To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Thu, 08 Feb 1996 13:52:03 ARG, "Alberto Daniel Teszkiewicz" wrote: > I'm receiving mail like this: > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > How can I decode it? Base64 is the encoding method used by MIME email. The canonical program do decode MIME messages is metamail (available by ftp from thumper.bellcore.com, I think). Another, much smaller one, is mpack/munpack. The PC-Elm mail reader can automatically call metamail on MIME messages if you so desire (and the SNews newsreader can be made to do so manually). >>> Dan dan@fch.wimsey.bc.ca / MIME email ok / finger danf@vanbc.wimsey.com for pgp key ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:24:00 -0500 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: Base64 To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Thu, 08 Feb 1996 13:52:03 ARG, "Alberto Daniel Teszkiewicz" wrote: > I'm receiving mail like this: > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 First, you yell at the sender and tell them you don't do MIME. Second, I think it's UUENCODED, get UUDECODE from our listserv or elsewhere. -- 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: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 14:22:02 +1100 (EST) From: cbrady@ind.tansu.com.au Subject: Base64 To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Tue, 13 Feb 1996 uupcinfo@kew.com wrote: > On Thu, 08 Feb 1996 13:52:03 ARG, "Alberto Daniel Teszkiewicz" wrote: > > I'm receiving mail like this: > > > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > First, you yell at the sender and tell them you don't do MIME. > > Second, I think it's UUENCODED, get UUDECODE from our listserv or > elsewhere. Two bits of bad advice, I'm afraid. 1. You might get yelled back at - "Well get a clue and do MIME, why don't ya? It's *the* Internet standard for attachments, dummy." 2. It's not UUENCODED, it's base 64. Read the MIME FAQ. You can use Wincode to decode it - look for wncod261.zip at your nearest appropriate archive site. Various MIME capable mail readers can decode it automatically. Charlie Brady - Telstra |internet: cbrady@ind.tansu.com.au Network Products |Snail : Locked Bag 6581, GPO Sydney 2001 Australia Platform Technologies |Physical : Lvl 9, 320 Pitt St, Sydney 2000 IN-Sub Unit - Sydney | Phone: +61 2 395 3396 Fax: +61 2 395 3225 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:27:24 -0500 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: double domain (aliasing domain) To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Tue, 6 Feb 96 7:01:10 +0100, uupcl@pgeck.sub.org wrote: > I am in the process of changing my domain. For some time it will > be necessary that my system accepts incoming traffic for the old > and the new domain (old domain pgeck.sub.org where pgeck is also > the name of this machine, new domain will be kiel.org, so this > machine will then be pgeck.kiel.org). I think this has to be done > using the hostpath file? Or do I have to use the file aliases? > Reading the docs I have only found how to aliase a system name in > hostpath. But what about two domains? Works great for domains, too, more or less. pgeck.kiel.org = pgeck.sub.org You can't alias all of a domain to more than than host, you can alias an entire domain to a single host or you can route an entire domain to a single host. -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. "AT&T is a modem test command." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:11:24 GMT From: ash@ash.gn.apc.org Subject: Help with provider mess To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hi.. Having a couple of problems with our uplink.. it just changed the machine that UUCP runs on from gn.apc.org to mail.gn.apc.org.. NOW certain messages Rmail does not like and exits with 69... and conversly the rmail on the uplink site mails me messages saying rmail exits with error 67... Is there an easy Easy fix... Please reply via too mail as I have only just subscribed from this address and I dont want to miss out on replies. Ash Ashley Drees Vox 44(0)181-968-3556 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 22:59:10 -0500 From: pbh@prjupiter.mi.org Subject: News and Windows 95 To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Well, although the UUPC binaries for NT work fine, apparently the new control software for NT - NNS - does _not_ work. Therefore, apparently, I am still searching. Anyone know of newscontrol software (ala snews and win vn) that work with 95? 95 has long names so most 16 bit stuff for dos/win is out of the question. Any help greatly appreciated. -- Patrick B. Haggood | I still dream of starships..... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 19:06:06 +0000 From: eric@terra.xs4all.nl Subject: newsrun is probably broken. To: UUPC/Extended mailing list -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi, I've just noticed some problems with Newsrun in 1.12p and 1.12r. I suspect that it will also be in 1.12o, but I didn't test it yet. I'll try this next. I am using the 32 bit OS/2 version. The problem is that newsrun misinterprets the byte counts on the "#! rnews ..." line. Which results in messages like: 02/14-13:15 newsrun: UUPC/extended 1.12r (Jan 20 1996 10:45:15) 02/14-13:15 Batched: Skipped 2607 bytes in 61 lines after article 8 02/14-13:15 Batched: Skipped 1571 bytes in 33 lines after article 18 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 1370 bytes in 32 lines after article 34 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 1107 bytes in 29 lines after article 41 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 866 bytes in 29 lines after article 43 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 871 bytes in 31 lines after article 45 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 1435 bytes in 43 lines after article 46 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 763 bytes in 22 lines after article 51 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 2298 bytes in 63 lines after article 54 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 591 bytes in 24 lines after article 55 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 851 bytes in 24 lines after article 62 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 2723 bytes in 66 lines after article 64 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 1889 bytes in 41 lines after article 75 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 2478 bytes in 62 lines after article 77 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 639 bytes in 28 lines after article 80 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 1585 bytes in 41 lines after article 89 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 1398 bytes in 35 lines after article 97 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 1117 bytes in 32 lines after article 98 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 2258 bytes in 63 lines after article 116 02/14-13:16 Batched: Skipped 1352 bytes in 46 lines after article 119 02/14-13:16 newsrun: Retained 139 articles, of which 0 were duplicates and 0 were junked. This not only leads to postings missing, but also to a lot of corrupted postings. BTW, I am receiving (and sending) my newsfeed batched compressed with gzip. - -- Eric Veldhuyzen TEAM OS/2 Eric.Veldhuyzen@si.hhs.nl CIS: [100010,3051] Eric@terra.xs4all.nl PGP-KeyID: 0xFB64FCB3 ************ FIGHT to keep your right to PRIVACY. Use PGP! ************ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBMSIltiRI0DH7ZPyzAQFITQP9FyGgsjBSFnz3hoFAIC5FIcuPK+dcbw+i a3kZC8cN5KgATXkYdZ7Cvmm6ju4mIfqU/0RZTeY0dsil/gRZooFtroU3+u2jn3Tq kCUNMxv8depfot5fDzjE7Ep2YtJFBnWvWTcXbpmPbE6TIe3vw02pOIMt/T0X8aQy p0U651CGaDI= =salF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:25:17 -0500 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: RMAIL Needed for WIN95 To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Sun, 11 Feb 1996 12:21:03 -0500, gould@arris.on.ca wrote: > Hello ... I am a registered user of UUPC. > > Can you tell me where I can obtain a copy of RMAIL suitable for > running under Windows 95. If RMAIL shells off anything else ... > I will need that too. > > An FTP site will be just fine. You want the ftp://ftp.clarkson.edu/pub/1.12r/upc12rn[123].zip -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. "AT&T is a modem test command." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:34:23 +0100 From: JAN@tfk.se Subject: Strange bouncing behaviour To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Hello We seem to have a problem with external mail being addressed to nonexisting users at our site. Mail bouncing works fine if the sender and the recipient are local users, but when we receive mail from an external user, the bounced mail is sent back to: user@OurProvidersDomain instead of user@TheSendersDomain Does anyone have a solution?... Thanks/ Jan Edholm ------------------------------------------------------------ The following is a (somewhat edited) sample as it looks when received by our provider (and shortly sent back to us): ------------------------------------------------------------ Received: by mail.swip.net with UUCP (8.6.8/3.01) Received: by tfk.se (UUPC/extended 1.12p) for multiple addressees; Thu, 08 Feb 1996 15:56:13 +0100 Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 15:56:13 +0100 From: "UUCP" To: SENDER@mail.swip.net Cc: postmaster@tfk.se Subject: Failed mail for misspelt_user_id Dear SENDER, Your message for address could not be delivered at system tfk.se (uucp node tfk) for the following reason: Invalid local address (not defined in PASSWD or ALIASES). The problem address or file in question was: misspelt_user_id A copy of the failed mail follows. Electronically Yours, UUPC/extended 1.12p UUCP mailer daemon ------ Failed Message Follows ----- Received: from seunet by tfk.se (UUPC/extended 1.12p) with UUCP for misspelt_user_id@tfk.se; Thu, 08 Feb 1996 15:56:11 +0100 Received: from chalmers.se by mail.swip.net /snip Received: from alamo.mot.chalmers.se by chalmers.se /snip Received: from [129.16.241.22] (motpc22) by alamo.mot.chalmers.se /snip Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:13:43 +0100 To: misspelt_user_id@tfk.se From: SENDER@mot.chalmers.se Subject: SomeSub --- Message --- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 07:44:39 -0500 From: help@kew.com Subject: TenFour Systems To: UUPC/Extended mailing list Dear UUPC/extended users: It has come to our attention that a commercial package distributed by TenFour Systems (a Swedish company) incorporates UUPC/extended. It appears that TFS is in direct and flagrant violation of our license agreement. We are attempting to resolve the situation. In the meantime, please be aware that: We have received *no* payment of any kind from TFS. We have especially *not* given them permission to commercialize our software. We have no connection of any kind with TFS. We do not support the TFS package in any way, except that we will continue to support UUPC/extended as a standalone package. Users of TFS are not automatically registered users of UUPC/extended, though we will cheerfully accept your registration should you choose to do so. Sadly, this seems like an appropriate time to reiterate the relevant provisions of our license agreement. Full details can be found in the file license.txt, available from our listserver and all license-compliant distribution points. UUPC/extended is shareware. It may be freely distributed as long as the license is followed, but it is *not* in the public domain. (We retain the copyright specifically to prevent this kind of abuse.) To legally redistribute UUPC/extended, you must, among other things: Include on each copy an appropriate copyright notice, retain all notices that refer to the license agreement, and give all users a copy of the license agreement. Either distribute source code or (for non-commercial distribution) provide pointers to source code distribution points. You may not charge a premium (above your distribution costs) for providing the UUPC/extended software to others. Thank your for your support. Regards, Katherine -- Katherine Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: docs@kew.com Chocolate Ice Cream Fund: Post Office Box 80144 Stoneham, MA 02180 USA As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 18:39:54 +0000 From: goran@tenfour.se Subject: TFS Gateway and license agreement. To: UUPC/Extended mailing list To whom it may concern I am Goran Fransson and am in charge of the TFS Gateway's development, and=20= has=20 been since day one. We received via a customer, a letter that Katherine Derbyshire has written=20= at=20 some point. I know fairly little about to whom and when it was written, but= it=20 claims that we at TenFour Sweden are in violation of your license agreement= .=20 This is, as far as we can read from the download of files, not true.=20 We started the gateway business towards the Internet where we used your UUC= ICO=20 program for the communication. This is the only part of the software we sen= t=20 along with the product. We also sent along the readme file that came with t= he=20 download at that time. The version was 1.11q. We have told customers that i= f=20 they want to upgrade to a later version they may do so, but we only support= the=20 interaction with 1.11q. Our intention has been to move away from your UUCIC= O=20 code and has since six moths back done so. We have during the two years of=20 shipping UUCICO not asked you one question about support on strange things=20= that=20 have happened. We have also instructed customers that they may not contact=20= you=20 about support since we understand that it would be very hard for you to eve= n=20 see where the limit between a TFS question and a UUCICO program goes, and e= ven=20 harder to help the person.=20 Before starting sending disks out we tried to verify the license agreement=20= with=20 you but received no answer different from what was in the README.TXT. This=20= is a=20 quote from it: This software may be used and copied freely so long as the applicable copyright notices are retained, but no money shall be charged for its distribution beyond reasonable handling costs, nor shall proprietary changes be made to this software so that it cannot be distributed freely. Whenever possible, the source must distributed with the executable files. The only thing that we have not done is included the source code. We simply= had=20 no space on our distribution disks. We have been sending it to customers th= at=20 have asked for it.=20 The README.TXT has always been included on the distribution disk, and we ha= ve=20 done NO changes to the UUCICO.EXE file before sending it out. We are charging customers for our gateway. We have not been charging for yo= ur=20 software however. TFS is a modular gateway that can either talk SMTP or UUC= P to=20 the Internet. We are charging for the LAN module and the software that we h= ave=20 produced to adminstrate the parameters and create files that your UUCICO.EX= E=20 can handle. Digging into my mail I might be able to find a message from Dre= w=20 Derbyshire, where he is recomending a user to get in contact with TFS, sinc= e we=20 had a MIME compliant gateway to UUCP. I am afraid that message is not there= =20 since it was a while back and I did not think we would get to the point of=20 writing these messages. I hope this message gives you more information about what we at TenFour hav= e=20 been doing with your software. I would be very happy if we could have a pho= ne=20 conversation regarding this issue. We would of course pay for the phone cal= l.=20 We honestly acted in, as we thought, both of our interest. We wanted to kee= p=20 your involvement, and your FTP servers involvemnet to a minimum. Looking ba= ck I=20 think were successful, unless you have information otherwise. In the messag= e=20 that came via a customer it said that "We are attempting to resolve the=20 situation". Has any attempts been made to contact us? Since this message is sent to docs@kew.com, we would apreciate an aknowlege= ment=20 of this message. Best Regards Goran Fransson --------------------------------------------------------------------- =20 !! !!!!!! Goran Fransson =20 !!! !! !!!!! Technical Manager !!!! !!!! TenFour Sweden=20 !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! Tel: +46 8 591 279 00 !!!! !!!! !! !!! Fax: +46 8 591 146 50 !!!! !!!! !!!! ! Internet: goran@tenfour.se !!!! !!!! !!!! X.400: S=3DFransson/G=3DGoran/C=3DUS/A=3D= MCI=20 !!!! !!!! !!!! WWW: http://www.tenfour.se !!!! ! !!!! ! !!!! !!!! ! !!!! !! !!! !!!! !! !!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!! -- Katherine Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: docs@kew.com Chocolate Ice Cream Fund: Post Office Box 80144 Stoneham, MA 02180 USA "I fight Authority, Authority always wins . . ." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 13:45:32 -0500 From: docs@kew.com Subject: TFS Gateway and license agreement. To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On Mon, 19 Feb 1996 18:39:54 +0000, goran@tenfour.se wrote: > I am Goran Fransson and am in charge of the TFS Gateway's development, and=20= > has=20 > been since day one. Thank you for your reply. > > We received via a customer, a letter that Katherine Derbyshire has written=20= > at=20 > some point. I know fairly little about to whom and when it was written, but= > it=20 > claims that we at TenFour Sweden are in violation of your license agreement= > .=20 I wrote the note based on the information provided to me by a user of your software. That user claimed, among other things, that you were distributing the software without providing any contact information for us, and without retaining our copyright notices. If the information from the user was incorrect, we apologize for the misunderstanding. > download at that time. The version was 1.11q. We have told customers that i= > f=20 > they want to upgrade to a later version they may do so, but we only support= > the=20 > interaction with 1.11q. Our intention has been to move away from your UUCIC= > O=20 > code and has since six moths back done so. We have during the two years of=20 > shipping UUCICO not asked you one question about support on strange things=20= > that=20 > have happened. We have also instructed customers that they may not contact=20= > you=20 > about support since we understand that it would be very hard for you to eve= > n=20 > see where the limit between a TFS question and a UUCICO program goes, and e= > ven=20 > harder to help the person.=20 FYI, the current version of the software is 1.12p. 1.11q is several years out of date. (As is the license agreement distributed with it.) We would appreciate it if you could use the upgraded UUCICO in any further distribution. > > Before starting sending disks out we tried to verify the license agreement=20= > with=20 > you but received no answer different from what was in the README.TXT. This=20= > is a=20 > quote from it: > > This software may be used and copied freely so long as the > applicable copyright notices are retained, but no money shall be > charged for its distribution beyond reasonable handling costs, > nor shall proprietary changes be made to this software so that it > cannot be distributed freely. Whenever possible, the source must > distributed with the executable files. As I said, the user claimed that you were not following the terms of this paragraph, particularly the part about copyright notices. If he was mistaken, I apologize for the misunderstanding. > I hope this message gives you more information about what we at TenFour hav= > e=20 > been doing with your software. I would be very happy if we could have a pho= > ne=20 > conversation regarding this issue. We would of course pay for the phone cal= > l.=20 Thank you for the clarification. I don't think a phone call will be necessary. > that came via a customer it said that "We are attempting to resolve the=20 > situation". Has any attempts been made to contact us? I had asked the user to provide contact information for your company. He had not yet done so. I appreciate your note clarifying the situation. I have cc'ed both this response and your original note to our mailing list. Katherine -- Katherine Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: docs@kew.com Chocolate Ice Cream Fund: Post Office Box 80144 Stoneham, MA 02180 USA "I fight Authority, Authority always wins . . ." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:22:57 -0500 From: uupcinfo@kew.com Subject: UUPC suddenly stops working To: UUPC/Extended mailing list On 04 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0000, hajo@quijote.in-berlin.de wrote: > I do not understand what has happened. > > The only UUPC file I have changed is "systems". Okay, so I changed it back. > Nonetheless, the error did not go away. To be sure, I fetched back > "systems" from a two-days-old backup. The error did not go away. "Device > not available"? The modem file is there. The modem file points to COM2. All > my other programs access the modem at COM2 without problems. > > > But for any uucico invocation, I get: > > uustat: UUPC/extended 1.12r (OS/2 32 bit mode, 20Jan96 10:45) > fub 3C(28h) 02/03-07:22 Device not available > uucico: UUPC/extended 1.12r (OS/2 32 bit mode, 20Jan96 10:45) > General Protection Fault exception occurred at EIP = 174BBDDA on thread 0001. > Exception occurred in C Library routine called from EIP = 0002F11D. > Register Dump at point of exception: > EAX = 00000000 EBX = 00000000 ECX = 00000000 EDX = 000461B1 > EBP = 0009D720 EDI = 00000000 ESI = 00000000 ESP = 0009D71C > CS = 005B CSLIM = 1BFFFFFF DS = 0053 DSLIM = 1BFFFFFF > ES = 0053 ESLIM = 1BFFFFFF FS = 150B FSLIM = 00000030 > GS = 0000 GSLIM = 00000000 SS = 0053 SSLIM = 1BFFFFFF > Process terminating. > SYS1808: > The process has stopped. The software diagnostic > code (exception code) is 0005. A slightly more verbose debugging log would be useful. Try nuking the HOSTATUS file, BTW. -- 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 ------------------------------ End of UUPC-Info-Request Digest ******************************