Date: Mon, 17 Nov 97 20:06:27 EST From: Snuffles@kew.com Subject: UUPC-Info-Request Digest 1997 #18 To: uupc-info-digest@kew.com Message-ID: Reply-To: UUPC-Info-Request@kew.com UUPC-Info-Request Digest Mon, 17 Nov 97 Volume 1997: Issue 18 Today's Topics: Interfacing with Taylor (2 msgs) Pipes in aliases File ... (2 msgs) Problems executing vmexec.exe ... Problems with syslog file location ... (2 msgs) Trouble with UUPC/extended EXPIRE 1.12s UUPORT in Win95 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, 16 Nov 1997 00:06:17 -0500 From: MarchHare@momeraths.org (Sysop) Subject: Interfacing with Taylor To: uupc-info@kew.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away ... :) I remember some odd versions back that there were certain protocols to be avoided when calling a Taylor UUCP system. I looked over the docs and saw no mention of it, so I'm wondering if that has been straightened out or not. Thanks, 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 iQCVAwUBNG5/w7MHJ4yl8MPNAQFtoAP+JwpSzm16jK4BfwiYUwNmM52CCtfpZepP 5AwXrK3lmlw/sonydXZfxrIcdNR/RN0vrs6R2XAwXD84/ttRboC0F9ZIqmrj4S54 vWSUCYKkwTqU5Dk0z5YR+Ici+TuMIshVL+v0lizvzBvmxLipL7DJ+jllygldhLCq mYJ8OYL/1Gs= =by0z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:51:40 -0500 From: Drew Derbyshire Subject: Interfacing with Taylor To: Sysop Sysop wrote: > I remember some odd versions back that there were certain protocols to > be avoided when calling a Taylor UUCP system. I looked over the docs > and saw no mention of it, so I'm wondering if that has been straightened > out or not. Long ago and far away, 't' did not work properly, and only inter-operated with other UUPC/extended systems. This was corrected at the end of 1994, it definitely works now. There *was* a second reported problem that sometimes 't' protocol would drop after a long exchange (tens of megabytes in a single transfer), but no one ever consistently reproduced it, and 'e' protocol was available. The preferred protocol for Taylor with UUPC/extended over a serial link is 'v', and the preferred protocol for most systems (both Taylor and non-Taylor) over a TCP/IP link is 'e'. -ahd- -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 You are in a maze of little twisty passages, all alike ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:29:14 +0100 From: "Thomas Heptner" Subject: Pipes in aliases File ... To: uupc-info@kew.com Hello, I have a problem using pipes within aliases (version 1.12s for DOS). Lines like the following within aliases file: time-l: | c:\usr\vms\bin\vmexec.exe 300 c:\usr\vms\bin\vmail.exe -t time-l@lenny.muc.de time produces an empty message (no header and no body) which is send to time via rmail. Can someone help me. Best regards, Thomas Heptner. mailto:hpt@lenny.muc.de ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 21:01:54 -0500 From: Drew Derbyshire Subject: Pipes in aliases File ... To: Thomas Heptner Thomas Heptner wrote: > I have a problem using pipes within aliases (version 1.12s for DOS). > Lines like the following within aliases file: > > time-l: | c:\usr\vms\bin\vmexec.exe 300 c:\usr\vms\bin\vmail.exe -t time-l@lenny.muc.de > time > > produces an empty message (no header and no body) which is > send to time via rmail. For that, use the explicit VMS support and let UUPC/extended write the VMS queue for you. See the manual for details. This also gives VMAIL more memory. Also, there may be a bug in the code for second and further aliases after a pipe; try putting time *first*, not second. -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 "Anyone got $10,000 for bail?" - "Blind Date" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:46:42 +0100 From: "Thomas Heptner" Subject: Problems executing vmexec.exe ... To: uupc-info@kew.com, vmail-l@vansys.com Hello, I have problems executing vmexec.exe from within aliases setting Vmail=c:\usr\vms\bin\vmexec.exe whithin uupc.rc and the line time-l >300 c:\usr\vms\bin\vmail.exe -t mail-server@lenny.muc.de within aliases. Messages with empty bodies force the vmailx stop working. Best regards, Thomas Heptner. mailto:hpt@lenny.muc.de ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 22:02:41 +0100 From: "Thomas Heptner" Subject: Problems with syslog file location ... To: uupc-info@kew.com Hello, I have a problem regarding the syslog file location. When I set the Option=syslog within the uupc.rc file the syslog is always written to the actual directory. In the documentation there is mentioned, that syslog is by default located at [SpoolDir]/syslog. Can someone help me. Thomas Heptner mailto:hpt@lenny.muc.de ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 20:58:54 -0500 From: Drew Derbyshire Subject: Problems with syslog file location ... To: Thomas Heptner Thomas Heptner wrote: > I have a problem regarding the syslog file location. When > I set the Option=syslog within the uupc.rc file the syslog > is always written to the actual directory. Can you clarify this please? *what* actual directory? Also, the UUPC/extended version, operating system, and did you follow the default directory layout? > In the > documentation there is mentioned, that syslog is by default > located at [SpoolDir]/syslog. Can someone help me. That's where it normally is, \uupc\spool\syslog. -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 "Anyone got $10,000 for bail?" - "Blind Date" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 07:49:30 -0500 From: Drew Derbyshire Subject: Trouble with UUPC/extended EXPIRE 1.12s To: Sysop , Sysop wrote: > On Tue, 04 Nov 1997 20:46:34 -0500, Drew Derbyshire wrote: > >Snuffles is loaded up with Chocolate in each paw, and we've got more > >downstairs (the bears really like Halloween), but our combined talents > >CANNOT figure out why this does anything. > > I explain that in my previous message. However, ... ... and I must again say deleting a non-existent file should not cause the system to crash, otherwise the system would bomb evertime you typed "del bogus". This is not to say I'm not keeping your example around, since I clearly don't know the problem either. I need to revisit all of it. > > The classic cause for expire > >blowing chow is buffer overruns in the history file processing (usually, too > >many news groups), > > Sounds similar to an RMAIL problem that I gave up on (large files > causing it to crash and no error message). Buffer length problem is 512 in that case, I think. I know where the problem may be on that one, in imfile.c. It's high on my list to correct now that I found the keyboard again. > How many is too many > newsgroups, btw? I've always wondered that. I've got 291 at last > count. The question is not number of news groups overall, but the buffer length used for one message for the history file or in some programs the news group text, including the headers (and SPAM messages get very long header lines). Common defines in UUPC/extended for buffer lengths are 512, 1024, and 4096. Our active file has ~ 13000 groups in it, the size of the active file does not matter. (We only receive ~ 10 groups, but the active file is huge to drive the active file sorting code added for 1.12r). Also, are people seeing expire crash on NON-OS/2 systems? Yout presumes the bug is not in every OS. -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 It is now pitch dark. If you proceed, you will likely fall into a pit. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 18:28:30 -0500 From: Drew Derbyshire Subject: UUPORT in Win95 To: Warwick Smith , Warwick Smith wrote: > I'm sorry if I'm sending this email to the wrong person, but I can > find no other way of contact. You actually want help@kew.com. No problem. > Is there anyway to suspend a UUCICO monitoring a COM port, to dial out > with another UUCICO under Win95? This works ok directly in NT, the > UUPORT works also. It may work under 95 IF USING THE 32 BIT WINDOWS UUCICO, you may need to use a different name for the pipe, as for example NT and OS/2 pipe names are different. (Does anyone on the list have a yea or nay?) > If this is not possible, why is there a UUPORT in the dos > distribution? Does this work? The DOS port works with the OS/2 UUCICO, and also the NT UUCICO, but they don't use the same pipe name. UUPORT does not work with the DOS or Windows 3.1 versions of UUCICO. -ahd- -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 "No, no, no! First you pillage, THEN you burn!" ------------------------------ End of UUPC-Info-Request Digest ******************************