Hi Mark,

>> Or perhaps you never even saw these files come in on June 29th
>> since your uplink's software couldn't toss them.. (not many but
>> some have reported this to me).

>i don't know if i saw them or not... i would have to look... they would not be
> moved by my processing, in any case, since my processing is 8.3 based...

I saw your post with the bad tic files list in ftsc_public.. this is what I
suspected would happen for a number of people.

>> These overly-long filenames caused some folks problems, so gert
>> andersen is rehatching the files with standard 8X3 file names.

> ahhh... that's why i have finally seen some traffic in there the last few
> days...

Yes (thanks Gert!)

>> Some in the FTSC-PUBLIC echo (the BinkD maintainers) don't think
>> this is an issue.  I do. 

>it is definitely an issue but there is supposedly a method whereby both the LF
> and the 8.3 can be specified and used by the mailers and tic tossers... i
> forget the details, though... it has been so long since we worked on any of
> that in frontdoor...

Over here, BBBS just passed the files on with no regard to file name length
or who was getting the file.  Some of my Downlinks let me know it didn't
work that well for them :(  Talk about bad tics.. :(

Also, as I mentioned in ftsc_public, when I tried to manually send a file
attach of one of the failed files to one of my downlinks, BBBS didn't have
enough space in Subj: line for the filename and the path to the file
(/home/ftp/pub/r50/aftnbinkd/binkd1.1a27-binkd2e-zlib-bzlib-p )
                                                             ^
                                                             |
This is where it clipped the Subj: line.

Anyway, we need 8X3 filenames.  No doubt in my mind.  I haven't asked Kim
Heino about extending the Subj: line.. I'd bet it would be a pia.  He may
have left room in that particular structure, but I don't know.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1