-=> William Connor spake unto Rob Szarka, saying <=-

 RS>  WC> call pseudo-unix, but not full UUCP.  You only have access to a few
 RS>  WC> unix commands, and unfortunately the ones that I need have been
 RS>  WC> taken away (or access cut would be more accurate).
 RS>  
 RS> The above just isn't making any sense to me...  Doesn't UUCP typically
 RS> run with *fewer* privs than a regular user account?

 WC> I wish I knew enough to answer that sensibly.  All I know is that
 WC> when I was using text-based programs for ftp, etc, there were many
 WC> more commands available for general use.  I fully realize that this
 WC> was not on my ISP's server, but I don't personally see the difference.
 WC> The ones that are blatantly missing are mget and mput, which I would
 WC> need (or at least that is what I think I need, I am not extremely
 WC> knowledgable in these matters, just trying to plod along with what
 WC> I do know) in order to get and send my mail through this portion
 WC> of my account.

I get the impression that you think a UUCP account should have the same
privileges as a typical Unix shell account, but typically it should have
fewer.  Not being able to run FTP, etc., doesn't mean having less than
"full UUCP."  UUCP is only designed for transferring files between
systems.

An analog to your statement above would be complaining that when you
dialed another FidoNet mailer you could run all the commands on the BBS.
Two different animals.


... QWK? I don't need no stinkin' QWK packet!