Date: Sun, 2 Nov 97 20:06:12 EST From: Snuffles@kew.com Subject: UUPC-Info-Request Digest 1997 #16 To: uupc-info-digest@kew.com Message-ID: Reply-To: UUPC-Info-Request@kew.com UUPC-Info-Request Digest Sun, 2 Nov 97 Volume 1997: Issue 16 Today's Topics: 1.12s? A question bangpath, authentication warning change in Stoneham Area Code expire stopped working (2 msgs) FIDONET bounces our mail (2 msgs) Hostpath, SMTP, revisited signoff Trouble with UUPC/extended EXPIRE 1.12s UUPC/extended From Line generation (was Re: Problem with last version) 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: Wed, 22 Oct 97 6:58:16 +0200 From: Peter Gahbler Subject: 1.12s? To: uupc-info@kew.com (UUPC Mailing List) Hi, I am still having little problems with version 1.12r regarding junking of articles and expiring. Someone (Drew?) told me to try 1.12s which some people are obviously using for some time. I couldn't find 1.12s on the usual sources and requested the index from kew.com. There was no date in the index file but according to the index the actual version is 1.12p, 1.12r is located in a directory named test and there is no sign of 1.12s!? Could it be the index is completely outdated? Has 1.12s been deleted? Bye Peter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 18:33:57 -0400 From: MarchHare@momeraths.org (Sysop) Subject: A question To: ghoti@lao-tse.lcrnet.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Walter Medak" wrote: >In the last couple of weeks, my UUCP feed had some problems with >email, causing none to flow at all. Now, every so often, I get email >from some one, which arrives correctly, but doesn't get put into my >mailbox. The only reason I can think of is that because the domain is >different from my real domain. Would putting the "wrong" domain into >the HOSTPATH file with the "proper" nodename fo my site rectify the >problem? When I registered my domain, I ran into a similar problem. The nodename was and still is mome, the old domain was apk.net, and the new domain was momeraths.org. I didn't want mail still addressed to the old one to bounce, so I put this into HOSTPATH: mome.apk.net = mome Hope that helps, John - -- //------------------------------------------------------------------------ // momerath@apk.net sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT` // MarchHare@momeraths.org ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD // ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA // .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA // In case of stupidity, break glass. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBNBR+F7MHJ4yl8MPNAQFrfgP/cxHBQpRf6OOjyYV9kx9beTGA8YYBLcoE Rcah8eMzR2GYIRZ/Vb/NKjfbaGGDl/75zbwUvOTJwm5GFjJkGL4irwrNhnyWKlFo 451OVpyoc11jZkXyYzKAMx4LsJ7s2AR7Qq59yAsxNZGYLzx/5d9IsQVjBhBVBVOV wlXBEzBfz6Q= =oFQJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 19:11:12 -0500 From: Drew Derbyshire Subject: bangpath, authentication warning To: Dale Wharton <1@dale.CAM.ORG>, uupc-info@kew.com In sendmail.cf, there is a line for trusted users. The user id 'UUCP' needs to be added to this list, and sendmail restarted/ Dale Wharton wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 20:21:55 -0500, you wrote: > > > You can't, it's added by the sending mailer. Have them make UUCP an > > trusted. > > Drew, what does it mean to "make UUCP an trusted" ? > > > > > > An example of my mail headers follows below. How can I simplify the > > > bangpath notation in the first line (or change it to 1@dale.cam.org)? > > > > > > How can I prevent the "X-Authentication-Warning" from appearing? > > > > > -- _ > Dale Wharton 1@dale.cam.org M O N T R E A L Te souviens-tu? > > -- > Drew Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: software@kew.com > Telephone: 617-279-9812 > > Steele's Plagiarism of Somebody's Philosophy: Everybody should believe > in something -- I believe I'll have another drink. -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 "He sure looks like plant food to me!" - "Little Shop of Horrors" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:39:46 -0400 From: Drew Derbyshire Subject: change in Stoneham Area Code To: uupc-info@kew.com The area code for Stoneham, MA has changed from 617 to 781. This makes our numbers 781-279-9812 (K.E.W. voice) and 781-279-9816 (modem) and so forth. -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 "Then I heard that long whistle whine . . ." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Aug 97 6:37:00 +0200 From: Peter Gahbler Subject: expire stopped working To: uupc-info@kew.com (UUPC Mailing List) Hi, suddenly expiring doesn't work anymore. I don't think I changed anything but now expire is only telling this (after some disk activity): expire: UUPC/extended 1.12r (OS/2 32 bit mode, 20Jan96 10:45) expire: Purging news older than 08/18-06:23 (7 days) General Protection Fault exception occurred at EIP = 179E531C on thread 0001. Exception occurred in C Library routine called from EIP = 000217F9. Register Dump at point of exception: EAX = 00000001 EBX = 00000000 ECX = 00000000 EDX = 00190812 EBP = 00081608 EDI = 00000000 ESI = 00000000 ESP = 000815F8  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: Der Prozeß wurde gestoppt. Der Softwarediagnosecode (Fehlercode der Ausnahmebedingung) ist 0005. What can I do? Bye Peter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:08:44 -0400 From: MarchHare@momeraths.org (Sysop) Subject: expire stopped working To: uupcl@pgeck.kiel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Yes, I've had the same problem with 1.12s. It only happened occasionally with 1.12r. I have, after three weeks or so, tracked down the problem. It became obvious after I started writing NoCEM for UUPC that it was happening more and more. The problem is that there are missing articles that expire expects to find, according to the history file. When the article's expiration date comes, expire attempts to remove the file, which is not there (see purge_article() for details). Obviously, this is a big problem with NoCEM, as that is what it does (deletes spammed articles), so I had no choice but to track this down. Your options: 1. Run genhist. That seems to fix it up about 50% of the time. I don't know for sure why it doesn't fix it 100%. 2. Run expire with a short expiry date on each group one at a time. It won't likely fix the problem, but at least you won't run out of disk space waiting for it to get over it. 3. Wait. Sooner or later, you will have all the needed entries to satisfy expire. Of course, you could run out of disk space first, which has happened to me about every two days until I was able to patch the problem. 4. I will be putting out a patched expire, with all of the diffs, as soon as I am satisfied that DBZ is finalized (got a little side-tracked with expire). I will put an announcement in uupc-hackers when it is uploaded, which should be soon. [As a side note, NoCEM should be about two weeks or less behind it, knock on wood.] Of course, you could delete the entire news directory and start over, if things are really out of hand :) Regards, John Peter Gahbler wrote: >Hi, >suddenly expiring doesn't work anymore. I don't think I changed >anything but now expire is only telling this (after some disk activity): > >expire: UUPC/extended 1.12r (OS/2 32 bit mode, 20Jan96 10:45) >expire: Purging news older than 08/18-06:23 (7 days) >General Protection Fault exception occurred at EIP = 179E531C on thread 0001. >Exception occurred in C Library routine called from EIP = 000217F9. >Register Dump at point of exception: >EAX = 00000001 EBX = 00000000 ECX = 00000000 EDX = 00190812 >EBP = 00081608 EDI = 00000000 ESI = 00000000 ESP = 000815F8 > 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: >Der Prozeß wurde gestoppt. Der Softwarediagnosecode >(Fehlercode der Ausnahmebedingung) ist 0005. > >What can I do? > >Bye > Peter > > - -- //------------------------------------------------------------------------ // momerath@apk.net sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT` // MarchHare@momeraths.org ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD // ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA // .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA // In case of stupidity, break glass. Unsolicited commercial email to this account entitles the sender to at least one free MIME'd binary! Apply today! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBNASoObMHJ4yl8MPNAQFGkAQAl/wE9Kyt0+YAh9Q4hGwgu6u6U7yjpprv Z7jviQBXfc2EDlV3hqefat9g+TEByMdCbKt9cuVH3BjdpYgSAxO3+mDcXrOOl6fY 9v1BQc3H0iHMl2ZLqbv3v86zxK3mDKa+Jb/RsU3CQjWb1mB4NCsy4ql4Ah8BqgXM KzyVFYlmUWI= =ivlY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:35:59 -0400 From: Drew Derbyshire Subject: FIDONET bounces our mail To: uuanno@p0.f77.n450.z2.fidonet.org Since Fidonet bounces our mail, you are being dropped from our mailing list. Please get a real Internet address (UUCP or on-line) if you wish to continue accessing our server, we may ban _all_ access from fidonet because I'm tried of Fidonet mailers taking the law into their own hands for valid solicited e-mail. To Whom It May Concern: I don't like having blind carbon copies of solicited e-mail being labeled as "other harassment", I personally pay for my link just as fidonet weenies do, in our case to support e-mail related to the software we give away for free. Fake threats (there is no postoffice.us domain, to the best of my knowledge -- US goverment addresses end in .gov) are viewed in the US as harassment, and so the bounce message could be viewed as EXACTLY what the bounce message purports to avoid. Also, your FIDONET mailer is a real dog since it lost the correct sender address in the original SMTP envelope, the correct bounce address for this mailing list is uupc-info-request@kew.com, not me personally -- I just happened to be the sender (as well as site postmaster). Get a real mailer which doesn't drop envelope information if you're going bounce e-mail messages for whatever reason. -ahd- -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 "One small bug for man, one great program for mankind." - N. Armstrong O/T-Track+ 2.66b wrote: > > *************************************************************************** > *** WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING > *************************************************************************** > * > * The e-mail-message appended below was bounced from the > * fidonet.org-domain because an occurence was detected which > * classifies it as unfit for fidonet-routing. > * > * If you have reason to believe your message was removed without due > * reason then kindly inform 'postmaster@f854.n292.z2.fidonet.org'. > * > * Commercial-mail, messages from listservers, mailing-lists, religious > * and other harassment will by definition not be distributed. > * > * If your country of residence is the USA then the following paragraph may > * apply to you: > * > * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > * By US Code Title 47, Sec. 227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem > * /printer meets the definition of a telephone fax/machine. > * By Sec. 227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited > * materials to such equipment. > * > * By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned > * section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary > * loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. > * > * Violations will be reported to 'abuse@postoffice.us'. > *************************************************************************** > > From: Drew Derbyshire @2:292/875 > To: uuanno @2:450/77 > Subj.: change in Stoneham Area Code > Dated: 17 Sep 97 16:39:46 > [processed here: 20 Sep 97 16:34:16] > > @INTL 2:450/77 2:292/875 > @MSGID: kew.com 0b71a715 > @REPLYADDR: ahd@kew.com > @REPLYTO: 2:292/875@fidonet UUCP > @CHRS: LATIN-1 2 > @PID: Mozilla 4.01 [en]C-MOENE (WinNT; U) > @RFC-Received: (from fnet@localhost) by infomag.infomag.belbone.be > (8.6.12/8.6.10) id VAA21604 for uuanno@f77.n450.z2.fidonet.org; Wed, 17 Sep > 1997 > 21:18:01 +0200 > @RFC-Received: from pandora.hh.kew.com (kendra.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.53.73]) > by medelec.uia.ac.be (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA21845 for > ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:59:27 +0200 > @RFC-Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pandora.hh.kew.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id > LAA16271 for UUPC-Announce-Explode; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:56:34 -0400 (EDT) > @RFC-Received: from sonata (sonata.hh.kew.com [192.195.203.135]) by > pandora.hh.kew.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA16114; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 > 11:39:45 -0400 (EDT) > @RFC-Message-ID: <341FF9C2.799B25F0@kew.com> > @RFC-X-Priority: 3 (Normal) > @RFC-X-Listserver: UUPC/extended for UNIX 1.24b > @RFC-Precedence: Bulk > To: uupc-info@kew.com > From: Drew Derbyshire > > The area code for Stoneham, MA has changed from 617 to 781. This makes > our numbers 781-279-9812 (K.E.W. voice) and 781-279-9816 (modem) and so > forth. > > -- > Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 > > "Then I heard that long whistle whine . . ." > @Via ifmail 2:292/875@fidonet, Wed Sep 17 1997 at 19:59 (2.10-tx8.3) > @Via ifmail 2:292/862@fidonet, Wed Sep 17 1997 at 21:18 (2.10-tx8.3) > > @Via D'Bridge 1.58 2:292/854 09/20 15:14 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:55:27 +0000 From: "Rehan Ahmed" Subject: FIDONET bounces our mail To: Drew Derbyshire what is all this about ? > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:35:59 -0400 > From: Drew Derbyshire > Organization: Kendra Electronic Wonderworks > To: uuanno@p0.f77.n450.z2.fidonet.org > Cc: postmaster@f854.n292.z2.fidonet.org, uupc-info@kew.com > Subject: FIDONET bounces our mail > Since Fidonet bounces our mail, you are being dropped from our mailing > list. Please get a real Internet address (UUCP or on-line) if you wish > to continue accessing our server, we may ban _all_ access from fidonet > because I'm tried of Fidonet mailers taking the law into their own hands > for valid solicited e-mail. > > To Whom It May Concern: > > I don't like having blind carbon copies of solicited e-mail being > labeled as "other harassment", I personally pay for my link just as > fidonet weenies do, in our case to support e-mail related to the > software we give away for free. Fake threats (there is no postoffice.us > domain, to the best of my knowledge -- US goverment addresses end in > .gov) are viewed in the US as harassment, and so the bounce message > could be viewed as EXACTLY what the bounce message purports to avoid. > > Also, your FIDONET mailer is a real dog since it lost the correct sender > address in the original SMTP envelope, the correct bounce address for > this mailing list is uupc-info-request@kew.com, not me personally -- I > just happened to be the sender (as well as site postmaster). Get a real > mailer which doesn't drop envelope information if you're going bounce > e-mail messages for whatever reason. > > -ahd- > -- > Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 > > "One small bug for man, one great program for mankind." - N. Armstrong > > > O/T-Track+ 2.66b wrote: > > > > *************************************************************************** > > *** WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING > > *************************************************************************** > > * > > * The e-mail-message appended below was bounced from the > > * fidonet.org-domain because an occurence was detected which > > * classifies it as unfit for fidonet-routing. > > * > > * If you have reason to believe your message was removed without due > > * reason then kindly inform 'postmaster@f854.n292.z2.fidonet.org'. > > * > > * Commercial-mail, messages from listservers, mailing-lists, religious > > * and other harassment will by definition not be distributed. > > * > > * If your country of residence is the USA then the following paragraph may > > * apply to you: > > * > > * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > * By US Code Title 47, Sec. 227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem > > * /printer meets the definition of a telephone fax/machine. > > * By Sec. 227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited > > * materials to such equipment. > > * > > * By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned > > * section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary > > * loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. > > * > > * Violations will be reported to 'abuse@postoffice.us'. > > *************************************************************************** > > > > From: Drew Derbyshire @2:292/875 > > To: uuanno @2:450/77 > > Subj.: change in Stoneham Area Code > > Dated: 17 Sep 97 16:39:46 > > [processed here: 20 Sep 97 16:34:16] > > > > @INTL 2:450/77 2:292/875 > > @MSGID: kew.com 0b71a715 > > @REPLYADDR: ahd@kew.com > > @REPLYTO: 2:292/875@fidonet UUCP > > @CHRS: LATIN-1 2 > > @PID: Mozilla 4.01 [en]C-MOENE (WinNT; U) > > @RFC-Received: (from fnet@localhost) by infomag.infomag.belbone.be > > (8.6.12/8.6.10) id VAA21604 for uuanno@f77.n450.z2.fidonet.org; Wed, 17 Sep > > 1997 > > 21:18:01 +0200 > > @RFC-Received: from pandora.hh.kew.com (kendra.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.53.73]) > > by medelec.uia.ac.be (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA21845 for > > ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:59:27 +0200 > > @RFC-Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pandora.hh.kew.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id > > LAA16271 for UUPC-Announce-Explode; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:56:34 -0400 (EDT) > > @RFC-Received: from sonata (sonata.hh.kew.com [192.195.203.135]) by > > pandora.hh.kew.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA16114; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 > > 11:39:45 -0400 (EDT) > > @RFC-Message-ID: <341FF9C2.799B25F0@kew.com> > > @RFC-X-Priority: 3 (Normal) > > @RFC-X-Listserver: UUPC/extended for UNIX 1.24b > > @RFC-Precedence: Bulk > > To: uupc-info@kew.com > > From: Drew Derbyshire > > > > The area code for Stoneham, MA has changed from 617 to 781. This makes > > our numbers 781-279-9812 (K.E.W. voice) and 781-279-9816 (modem) and so > > forth. > > > > -- > > Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 > > > > "Then I heard that long whistle whine . . ." > > @Via ifmail 2:292/875@fidonet, Wed Sep 17 1997 at 19:59 (2.10-tx8.3) > > @Via ifmail 2:292/862@fidonet, Wed Sep 17 1997 at 21:18 (2.10-tx8.3) > > > > @Via D'Bridge 1.58 2:292/854 09/20 15:14 > > Take Care !! OK!!! Remember my email it is Rehan@Rehan.com Or Rehan@rehan.com.pk ------- The Following is a Signature ------------ And NOOOOOO PLEASE DONT LOOK AT http://rehan.com No Please u cant , pleaseeeeeeeeee Well My icq# is 130844 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 20:09:37 -0400 From: MarchHare@momeraths.org (Sysop) Subject: Hostpath, SMTP, revisited To: uupc-info@kew.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- OK, after banging my head against the desk enough times, maybe I have this right this time. I've never understood some of the comments about calling an external program or passing the mail messages directly to a SMTP server until now, I think. So, this is how I understand it: A sysadmin at node N puts the entry into his HOSTPATH file: N | localproc.exe The ISP for node N sits and waits for node N to call. Node N calls up ISP to receive news/mail (it has been a very light day). UUCICO accepts incoming messages. After disconnect, UUXQT is run. mail msg -> UUXQT -> localproc.exe Now, localproc.exe handles the message, say to import to a POP3 server. OK, user dials up, pops their mail, reads it and then replies. mail reply -> POP3 -> outgoing spool Now, a timed program picks up the replies in the spool. spooled msg -> localproc.exe -> RMAIL -> UUCP spool Right? Since the outgoing message is NOT intended for the local domain, it still gets passed to RMAIL and goes into the outgoing spool, yes? And, if there are two recipients, one local and one remote, then the local recipient would receive it as spooled msg -> localproc.exe -> RMAIL -> localproc.exe -> POP3 I guess I'm just slow sometimes. However, the above also illustrates that the local recipient would most likely receive it three times in this example. Once because the POP3 server would most certainly deliver it, once because localproc.exe would probably respool it again before passing it to RMAIL and the third time because RMAIL would pass it back to it again. John - -- //------------------------------------------------------------------------ // momerath@apk.net sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT` // MarchHare@momeraths.org ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD // ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA // .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA // In case of stupidity, break glass. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBNEQNWbMHJ4yl8MPNAQGe3AP/a/1fo871Z9TLzIC7HPKBHKiRQz4vDjKV YxNnceZOBe22gN6EIXOjInuMimweYI7bIZTi22jkZU+J/SCiis+lOGbRiqEiPFrn 42ocp8nyPeupDYjLPO5PS5j1qQJFjFjA/i0DAKmY/QeooQidR+Lz9S0lRFy2by6y K2wiYbNfUUg= =qQwy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 08:05:03 +0000 From: WRB@wp.maine.com Subject: signoff To: uupc-info@kew.com Can someone email me privately and tell me how to unsubscribe from this list. I tried signoff but it didn't work. Sorry to have to waste bandwidth to ask for assistance. Thanks! Wayne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 19:02:03 -0500 From: Drew Derbyshire Subject: Trouble with UUPC/extended EXPIRE 1.12s To: William Joye , uupc-info@kew.com Numerous problems still exist with expire. I need to stablize the source for the SMTP code and then revisit news. Clearly, given my disappearance for six months (I switched day time employers), I don't know the schedule. William Joye wrote: > > In 32 bits mode : > > I have tested the new UUPC 1.12s on my windows 95 pc (with UUPC installed > on a Netware file server 3.14). I have regenerated a history file by > GENHIST command and after I have launched a EXPIRE command. Here is my > command : EXPIRE -e7 alt.security.pgp. This caused a Windows GPF. Is it a > bug or a mistake ? > > EXPIRE caused an invalid page fault in > module KERNEL32.DLL at 0137:bff78040. > Registers: > EAX=00667fec CS=0137 EIP=bff78040 EFLGS=00010212 > EBX=00757818 SS=013f ESP=0064f3e8 EBP=00000668 > ECX=00100000 DS=013f ESI=00667fec FS=0e4f > EDX=0066000c ES=013f EDI=000ef82c GS=0000 > Bytes at CS:EIP: > 8b 03 a8 01 74 25 25 fc ff ff 0f 8b 53 08 03 f8 > Stack dump: > 00000668 000ef82c 006677e8 00000804 bff782c8 00660000 00667fec 000ef82c > 00000000 006677e8 00660000 00000000 0066000c 00000757 00000000 00000000 > > In 16 bit mode : > > With another station in DOS 5.0 on the Netware LAN, I have the same > problem. The EXPIRE command is stuck on the screen. > > -- > William JOYE PHASE s.c. > ,,,,, Dansaertlaan, 72 > (. .) B-1702 Groot-Bijgaarden > --ooO-(_)-Ooo-- Belgium > william@ains.aton.net Phone : +32 2 466.42.45 > william@phase.be Fax : +32 2 463.09.67 > william@joye.home.aton.be > > Key fingerprint = 9F F9 A3 AD 16 16 47 73 F6 25 1B 85 08 90 40 6F > KeyID = 88BD8AC9 > > -- > Drew Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: software@kew.com > Telephone: 617-279-9812 > > Steele's Plagiarism of Somebody's Philosophy: Everybody should believe > in something -- I believe I'll have another drink. -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 "He sure looks like plant food to me!" - "Little Shop of Horrors" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 18:58:26 -0500 From: Drew Derbyshire Subject: UUPC/extended From Line generation (was Re: Problem with last version) To: William Joye Please note your subject line was not useful -- "Problem with last version" doesn't describe the exact problem or the version. Depends on the system in question and the from node is parsed; the parsing improved in the last version, so the short name which was missed previously is now picked up and used. I'll be looking at that entire code for the next release. William Joye wrote: > > I have observed that the last version (1.12s) of UUPC (DOS and 32bit) > don't write correctly the first line of the message 'From '. > > In version 1.12s : > >From demo2!william Wed Aug 20 09:31:06 1997 remote from demo2 > ... > > In version 1.12r : > >From demo2.aton.be!william Wed Aug 20 09:26:08 1997 remote from demo2 > ... > > In the last version in the bangpath, the domain name are changed in > nodename. > > Can you explain me why ? > > -- > William JOYE PHASE s.c. > ,,,,, Dansaertlaan, 72 > (. .) B-1702 Groot-Bijgaarden > --ooO-(_)-Ooo-- Belgium > william@ains.aton.net Phone : +32 2 466.42.45 > william@phase.be Fax : +32 2 463.09.67 > william@joye.home.aton.be > > Key fingerprint = 9F F9 A3 AD 16 16 47 73 F6 25 1B 85 08 90 40 6F > KeyID = 88BD8AC9 > > -- > Katherine Derbyshire > > Kendra Electronic Wonderworks support@kew.com > PO Box 80144 phone: 617 279 9812 > Stoneham, MA 02180 http://www.kew.com > > Have you registered your copy of UUPC/extended? (Don't forget!) > "There is much Obi-Wan did not tell you." > -- > Drew Derbyshire UUPC/extended e-mail: software@kew.com > Telephone: 617-279-9812 > > Steele's Plagiarism of Somebody's Philosophy: Everybody should believe > in something -- I believe I'll have another drink. -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 "He sure looks like plant food to me!" - "Little Shop of Horrors" ------------------------------ End of UUPC-Info-Request Digest ******************************